699:- hence the primary topic carve-out in PRECISION), then we have decided that that term is sufficiently precise to be the title of that article. Yes, many good things are unnecessary, but in the case of choosing one among several reasonable good choices, as is frequently the case with WP titles, having definitive principles, polices and guidelines by which these decisions could be made objectively rather than subjectively per the whims of whoever happens to be making the choice, is how we achieve title stability, less jerking around, and good-for-our-readers titles anyway. That's why "necessary" is necessary to explain this; it's a mechanism to separate the chaff from the wheat in our titles. --
874:? I can't see how. Would something be discussed that is not being discussed due to my tendentious editing? The closing admin did note that the volume made it unlikely for many individuals to have read the entire thing, but does that really matter? Nothing prevented anyone from considering the proposal made, and responding to it. Does everyone really have to read everything everyone else wrote? Where is the disruption? Some people have complained that my long posts waste others' time, but you can't blame me when other people choose to spend their time participating in the RFC I started. Obviously, I'm biased, but all this talk about me being in violation of
681:
difference to our readers or the quality of the encyclopedia. By reducing the subjectivity, the deciding of what the titles should be takes up less editor resources. As to primary topic, that is a factor in title decision-making only with respect to identifying title candidates for a given article. That is, if the primary topic for a given term is not the subject of the article in question, then that term, undisambiguated, is not a candidate title for that article. In this case the primary topic of "Paris" is the city in France, regardless of what the title of the article is. "Paris" is the better title not
949:: Inconsistencies and errors in policy/guideline wording often only become obvious when that wording is scrutinized during a dispute. If there is true conflict about what that wording should be, then there should be a separate discussion about that. But if it's obvious what consensus supports with regard to that wording, then the wording should be corrected as soon as possible. Just because a wording problem was uncovered due to a dispute is no reason to not correct it.
1044:
that title accordingly, even if there is no consensus of the small self-selected sample of contributors that happen to be participating in a given discussion. We can do this as participants in RM discussions, and also as closers. Once a title is on policy-based solid ground, it tends to become uncontroversial and stable. Controversy and instability usually indicates the current title is on weak policy-based ground (see the
870:, I read them and gave them careful consideration, and often responded, particularly if they said something which I didn't understand, or if it said something which seemed problematic in some way. Since I tend to err on the side of being wordy rather than concise but unclear, I have a lot of comments there, and some are rather long, and there is some repetition. But does all that really add up to
51:
disruptive since it's trivial to ignore and has no direct bearing on article content, but since I do recognize that I often find myself in similar discussions and so often repeat answers and explanations I've previously provided, I thought I would develop this FAQ to which I could just reference when appropriate. Hopefully this will save me time as well as reduce any problems my efforts cause.
893:. The context is in a dispute/argument with another person I probably try to convince them longer and more time than is productive, effective or good for WP. My impression though is that even there I don't really repeat the same argument as much as I try to word it differently, address something they just said, etc., but whether it's an actual TE violation it is an area where
240:. But once some objection is established, yeah, discussion and consensus are required... on the individual change, not necessarily on the broader rule change issue. Consensus for a rule change typically does not happen until consensus is established for some number of individual changes, establishing a trend that shows broad consensus for the rule to reflect the new changes.
1095:
rules clearly indicate the choice should be A, there is nothing to argue about, JDLI or otherwise. But if the rules indicate the choice could be A or B, without providing much if any clear guidance on which to choose, then the situation is ripe for proponents of A and B to support their favored choice with JDLI arguments. Of course they can make their JDLI arguments
976:: Actual practice sets precedent on Knowledge, and influences how the rules are written and how related decisions are made. So every title that is inconsistent with the rules can influence other titles to be inconsistent, and the effect can ultimately snowball. That why it's important to "fix" inconsistencies with the rules.
586:, another suburb of Brussels, is ambiguous, and this is made absolutely clear by their respective titles. Please also note that if this information was not conveyed by the title, it would not be conveyed at all. If suburbs of Brussels were all predisambiguated whether ambiguous or not like most U.S. cities, then
1201:
proposals and discuss. Those uninterested are not required to participate, or they can quickly register their position with regard to any official RM proposal. And discussions about article content can continue in separate sections. But to oppose proposals or discussion where there is no consensus is a form of
1183:. It was built to hold on to an untenable state of things. It was hotly debated and criticized during the time it existed, and many people crossed it nevertheless. One thing it did not achieve: That things would quiet down and people would accept the status quo. I think people should learn from history...
928:
Decisions and moves that are made normally via the WP:RM process, but are questioned, including maybe because it was contentious and closed by a non-admin, are not inherently wrong and so should not be swiftly reverted but should be brought to the attention of admins, either at WT:RM or here at AN/I,
924:
Potentially controversial moves that occur without going through WP:RM are widely held to be inherently wrong (regardless of whether the move is "right" or "wrong") and need to be reverted quickly and swiftly. Then, if someone really wants to move it, they are encouraged to go through WP:RM as should
405:
But, conciseness applies when other factors don't strongly favor one title over another. If a proposed alternative is much better than the current title for reasons well grounded in policy, guidelines and conventions, and an equivalent argument cannot be made favoring the current title, then I would
979:
So, ironically, making progress with article stability includes moving articles with titles that are inconsistent with the rules, sometimes even if they have been stable at their titles for a very long time. An alternative is to change the rules so that the titles in question are compliant with the
685:
of primary topic, but because of COMMONNAME and unnecessary disambiguation. Primary topic only tells us that "Paris" is sufficiently precise to be the title, not that it necessarily is the best title. If you want to argue that there should be no primary topic for "Paris" because it's ambiguous, then
122:
The general problem with blindly following pre-emptive disambiguation naming conventions (by following a certain pattern in titles even for articles whose undisambiguated names are unambiguous) is that it invites editors to believe or assume that putting an article at a unique predisambiguated title
50:
Because of my interest in article title naming consistency and predictability, I am involved in many naming discussions, and several editors have kindly suggested that the amount of editing I do on talk pages is too much, and is disruptive. I don't really see how talk page discourse can be all that
1094:
in discussions about the title selection process where the argument is often made that policies and guidelines should allow for "flexibility" in title decisions. My point is that JDLI arguments are easier to make when the rules allow for more choice than for fewer (i.e., more flexibility). If the
1009:
Many people consider driving an automobile to be an art too, but autonomous vehicles are proving that driving too is algorithmic. Surely choosing titles for WP article is a far simpler task than driving a car in traffic. If driving can be done by algorithms, certainly title decision-making can be.
390:
One might suggest that choosing the more descriptive title is an equally effective tie breaker, except it isn't. Choosing the more descriptive title is not effective because there is no obvious limit to "more descriptive". Almost any title could be improved in terms of becoming more descriptive.
1200:
Well, if we do have a consensus decision about a title and a few opponents keep bringing up previously rejected arguments, that's disruptive and should not be tolerated. But if no consensus has been achieved, those who are interested should be allowed and even encouraged to continue to make new
1043:
applies to a given situation more than determining the consensus of those that happen to be discussing the issue. That means doing better at recognizing when one side in a title conflict is clearly supported better by policy (which reflects community consensus) than the other, and advocating for
661:
No reader is directly advantaged or disadvantaged by that city article being titled "Paris" or "Paris, France" (presuming that if the title is at the latter the former is a primary redirect to the latter). When we have a situation where the choice is between two reasonable acceptable titles like
632:
What reader is disadvantaged by that city article being titled "Paris, France"? What principle drives you to support "Paris" as the best title? Why should "unnecessary disambiguation" or "mandatory disambiguation" be considered anything better than rhetoric? "necessary to indicate accurately its
397:
One might suggest that consensus can decide in such cases what is the best balance of all the factors, including balancing concision and how descriptive the title is, but such a subjective decision depends entirely on whoever happens to be participating in the evaluation, and can change any time
1001:
Where the simple implicit algorithm does not apply, other more nuanced variants of it do. Algorithmic title determination is preferable to the alternative because it's not contentious. The more titles we can determine by just "plugging in" the basic facts, the less debate there will be about
680:
and title stability. "Unnecessary disambiguation" (don't know about "mandatory disambiguation") is not just rhetoric - it, like COMMONNAME, is a proven effective approach to title decision-making that underlies title stability on WP - reducing subjectivity in decisions that make no significant
195:
There are several reasons for this, but probably the most important is that we rarely have a true quorum deciding anything. Even on policy talk pages most decisions involve a handful or two of the thousands of editors working on
Knowledge. No one discussion can really establish true broad
789:). The conflict with policy that exists in special cases of articles about topics with clear and unique unambiguous natural names, where the guideline-indicated title is less concise and more precise than necessary, is not in accordance with the principle naming criteria, which creates a
617:
It also can be useful to know what term is most commonly used in reliable source to refer to a given topic. If we deviate from that with additional description in the title, especially if it's not parenthesized, then the reader does not receive the benefit of having that information.
554:
If you go to any article about a person, you know immediately whether that person's name is ambiguous or not, by whether the title is disambiguated or not. For example, we know that
Nicholas Campbell, a Canadian actor, is unambiguous because the title of the article about him is at
264:
But even within the scope of just U.S. city names, if there is ever going to be a change, there will have to be a period of unknown length of inconsistency. Even the renaming of articles on the AP list took years to implement, starting in 2008 with the IAR moves of articles like
605:
With U.S. cities, one of the few groups of similar articles with predisambiguated titles even when the base name of the topic is available, we don't know whether a given name is unambiguous or not because they are all predisambiguated. For example, is
Tallahassee
1099:
to be arguments substantiated in policy and guidelines with rationalization, but the bottom line is that if the guidelines allow for "flexibility", then they don't favor either one, by definition. Thus "flexibility" enables JDLI arguing. That's the connection.
694:
to support the title being "Paris, France". The primary topic carve-out in PRECISION is not stupid. In short, to characterize what is meant by avoiding too much precision in titles, if a concise term is to redirect to the article in question anyway (per
920:: First, it's important to distinguish moves which are inappropriate because they are done unilaterally without going through WP:RM even though they are potentially controversial, to moves that went through WP:RM and the decision is being questioned.
285:
were finally moved in 2012. So we had four years of inconsistency with respect to how articles about cities on the AP list were titled. No one has identified any harm suffered by WP or its users as a result of that inconsistency during that time.
1002:
titles, and the more stable our titles will be. While we can probably never get to a place where all titles can be determined by algorithm, striving towards that goal will result in fewer and fewer titles being contentious. This means evolving
106:
use that for its title? Providing additional descriptive information in a title is not something normally done in WP article titles, unless it is necessary for disambiguation, which in those cases where the name is unique or the topic is
401:
If we all agree to favor the more concise title in such cases, there is no sound grounds for anyone to propose a change (unless something changes, like another use of that title becomes commonly used). That leads to stability in titles.
633:
topical scope" is the definition of precision. The PRIMARYTOPIC carve-out nullifying the definition of "precise" is stupid. Many good things are unnecessary. Why do you feel "necessary" is a necessary word to use to explain this stuff?
222:. This is not subverting the rules, or being dishonest or irresponsible. It's the standard way to change things in WP. And, yes, it means inconsistencies during the transition stages, which can last months or even years.
878:
seems like a contrived wikilawyering excuse by those who disagree with me to get me to shut up. That said, I am taking measures to reduce the volume of my contributions to these discussions, and this FAQ is part of that.
980:
revised rules, but this is often impractical, because changing the rules can affect countless titles, and such change often requires contradicting other rules, which leads to ambiguity in guidance, and less stability.
993:
Because most titles can and are determined by an algorithm, implicitly if not explicitly. In fact, a very simple implicit algorithm determines the title for probably the majority of our articles. That algorithm is:
379:) helps us achieve the goal of long-term title stability and reducing conflict about titles. The situation often arises that the choice is between the current title and an alternative. If strong arguments based on
662:
this, and the other will redirect to whichever one we choose to be the title, the effect on the reader of our choice is negligible. Just in case, the italicized hatnote at the top of the page clearly explains:
126:
As a result, it is very common for the base name of topics with predisambiguated titles to be neglected with respect to how that name is treated relative to that topic. The specific problems are manifested as:
1117:
on
Knowledge. There are many examples of titles that were controversial for a long time but for which consensus for titles that are now stable finally was reached through proposals and discussion, including:
211:
situation: you can't change at the article level because doing so is contrary to the guidelines; but you can't change the guidelines because the guidelines accurately reflect what is going on at the article
461:
Conciseness is not just brevity, so it doesn't necessarily mean the shorter one. Comprehensiveness is also a key component of conciseness. Thus we don't prefer "Clinton" to "Bill
Clinton" for the title of
690:. But if you concede that the primary topic of "Paris" is the French city, then you're up against COMMONNAME, unnecessary disambiguation (i.e., the avoid too much precision part of PRECISION) and
253:, but we only need to take a few steps, maybe 2 or 3 articles, before we can discuss changing the guideline to reflect this change. Without that, we simply have no basis to change the guideline.
233:. It's just that in a discussion about a proposal properly based on IAR, any oppose argument solely based on the change being against the guidelines should not be given much, if any, weight.
394:
But if we always favor the most concise of acceptable titles for a given article, then that title is likely to remain the most concise acceptable choice for a long time, if not forever.
114:
Blindly following naming conventions is tempting, because it seems easier (you just name the article according to the convention, and you're done!), but actually it creates problems.
996:
If the topic has a single obvious most commonly used name which is either unambiguous with other uses on
Knowledge, or is the primary topic for that name, then that name is the title
485:
a few times if you're not convinced our titles generally are not comprehensive descriptions of the topic). It means the title must be complete, or whole; not a partial title. So
481:
of the topic—the introduction and body of the article are for that. This is exemplified by all of our titles, none of which are a comprehensive description of the topic (click on
859:
200:, if a trend is established, one can propose a change to the corresponding policy, guideline, MOS or whatever to reflect the new trend which establishes true broad consensus.
236:
Now, if changes contrary to guidelines or MOS are being made unilaterally, then that's a problem, though even then at least at first one can probably defend his actions per
1113:
The goal is, or should be, to find a title that enjoys consensus support. We don't get there by suppressing proposal consideration and associated discussion. In fact,
929:
so that an admin can review the closing and decide whether the decision was reasonable or not (and potentially reverse if not). This occurs at least a few times a year.
843:
Generally speaking, in particular with expressing my opinion on talk pages, I suppose "partisan or biased" might be a fair characterization, but never with regard to
357:
39:
My main interest at
Knowledge is article naming in general, and in particular, making all article titles as consistent with the general naming criteria laid out at
138:
72:
244:
So we need to persuade "a consensus of those participating at each step"? I don't think that's going to work with such a massive base of applicable articles.
819:]. Regardless of whether the article is at or , the other one will have to be a redirect to the article. So we will always have (at least) two entries.
261:
First, we already have inconsistency - the way U.S. city names are unnecessarily disambiguated is inconsistent with how cities in other countries are named.
132:
83:. The only good reason I know to follow a particular pattern for naming is be consistent in how we disambiguate titles of certain kinds of articles,
68:
567:. But from that title we also know that there is only one actor named Douglas Campbell, otherwise the title be disambiguated even further, perhaps
141:(the predisambiguated topic is not listed on the dab page for the predisambiguated topic's base name, nor in a hat note of the primary topic article
47:, as is reasonably possible. I believe there is a lot of unnecessary debate that could be easily avoided with better compliance with these rules.
387:
can be made supporting both, meaning that both are acceptable titles, choosing the more concise of the two is a highly effective tie breaker.
156:
In short, specific naming conventions are very useful for providing guidance when the general naming conventions indicate a name that requires
925:
have been done in the first place. Note that reverting obvious vandalism is not a potentially controversial move, but most other reverts are.
489:
in the context of
Knowledge title decision-making means to use the shortest complete title. Of course, the title should also meet the other
325:, not a guideline. The rule that calls for using for U.S. city article titles even when disambiguation it not required is a guideline, and
358:
What's wrong with more descriptive titles? Why is "Paris" a better title than "Paris, France"? You seem to prefer minimalist titles. Why?
741:
policy, as it does in cases where the topic has a concise and unique natural name that needs no additional precision for disambiguation,
229:
change - and going against policy/guideline/MOS is almost always by definition controversial - requires a discussion and establishment of
1051:
Improving title policy through an evolving process that gives ambiguous guidance as to what the title should be in fewer and fewer cases.
854:
I know many people, particularly those who disagree with my opinions, genuinely feel that the volume and repetition of my commentary can
528:) is long term naming stability and reduction in conflict, which is a benefit to editors, not readers, and is an issue to which much of
551:(no unnecessary disambiguation) means one can instantaneously determine whether a given use is uambiguous or not just from the title.
418:
345:
are the results of a search for "Ann Arbor" from books.google.com - not one hit for "Ann Arbor, Michigan" in at least the first seven
466:, even though "Clinton" is shorter than "Bill Clinton", because we don't consider "Clinton" to be a comprehensive title, in terms of
148:
the predisambiguated topic is not considered a "significant competing use" in primary topic determinations for that base name (e.g.,
1202:
746:
326:
90:
But following a naming convention -- and for no other reason -- is, by definition, not a good reason to choose a name. In contrast,
1109:
Why do you oppose moratoriums on RM proposals? Wouldn't a moratorium ensure stability, at least during the time of the moratorium?
1045:
342:
578:
This is also true with most place names, since most are not predisambiguated like most U.S. cites currently are. For example,
257:
Well, I prefer consistent adherence to a flawed standard than inconsistency, especially on a big topic like naming conventions.
123:
alleviates them from their responsibility to consider treatment of the base name of that topic as it applies to that topic.
547:
and there are other uses of it about which exist WP articles). A group of similar articles whose titles are consistently
216:
So a proposal being out of line with policy/guideline/MOS is not in and of itself a good reason to object to that proposal
757:
568:
203:
Another important related reason for allowing change at the article level contrary to guidelines (for good reason per
758:
But doesn't WP:TITLE say titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred?
1033:
Ultimately, I seek policy-based resolution to conflicts about titles. There are two main prongs to this approach:
676:
The principle that drives support of "Paris" over "Paris, France" as the best title are the related principles of
696:
564:
230:
773:
true that many article titles follow the pattern used by similar articles as established in guidelines, but
434:
933:
I'm pretty sure this view reflects the consensus of the community on how these matters should be handled.
894:
668:
544:
176:
165:
102:. When the undisambiguated base name of a topic is the normal, common and natural name for the topic, why
1006:
to be less ambiguous and less contradictory, and bringing titles into better compliance with those rules.
339:"if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence."
341:
The notion that U.S. cities are not commonly referred to by name only is patently absurd. For example,
591:
1014:
703:
677:
611:
302:
177:
Shouldn't you get the policy/guideline changed, rather than try to subvert it one article at a time?
1114:
1038:
989:
Title determination is an art, why do you think titles can be determined by some kind of algorithm?
738:
691:
525:
118:
What problems are caused by naming conventions that apply even when disambiguation is not required?
99:
841:"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole."
524:(avoiding unnecessary predisambiguation or additional descriptive information, in compliance with
858:. Some have cited as an example of that my contributions to the commentary at an RFC I started:
490:
467:
504:
The comprehensiveness component of conciseness is not a reason to use a more descriptive title.
207:) is that requiring policy/guideline/MOS change prior to change at the article level creates a
1188:
1055:
You will see either or both of these factors at play in almost all of my title-related edits.
556:
548:
142:
108:
727:
208:
686:
you're saying that "Paris" should not even be a redirect to the article which should be at
513:
How do readers benefit from avoiding unnecessary disambiguation or more descriptive titles?
196:
consensus. So it makes sense to change things one article, or a few articles, at a time.
1163:
1108:
1011:
774:
734:
700:
599:
529:
318:
314:
161:
95:
76:
40:
17:
535:
But there are benefits to readers too. It can be useful to know whether a given term is
225:
That said, you do need to persuade a consensus of those participating at each step. Any
958:
You say you support title stability, but you support moves? How do you reconcile that?
610:
or not? We can't tell from the title of the article because being at the disambiguated
1091:
1065:
583:
482:
237:
44:
1155:
817:
Two entries are not better for the readers than one entry, of course, why do you ask?
790:
687:
575:
can we reliably convey this information about the ambiguity of names to our readers.
219:
204:
1184:
1170:
1147:
1003:
890:
886:
875:
836:
463:
380:
164:
indicate a name that is unique in
Knowledge, or for which the topic in question is
277:, then the guideline change, then most of the others, but not really ending until
184:
Change normally occurs bottom-up in WP, since the guidelines and policies tend to
317:
and referring to U.S. cities as "City, State" as being "common usage". First,
168:, it should just be used and there is no use for the specific naming convention.
1180:
1131:
1123:
451:
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.
384:
157:
218:, especially when someone proposing the change has given good reason to invoke
131:
missing redirects (the predisambiguated topic's base name is a red link). See
860:
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RFC:_United_States_cities
852:"behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."
1139:
1127:
885:: It has been brought to my attention that one particular characteristic of
571:
if he were the only
Canadian actor with that name. Only if we consistently
410:
Well, that helps editors, but aren’t we more concerned with helping readers?
282:
278:
87:, and there is no good reason to disambiguate some other way in particular.
779:"ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria
594:, and the only way to know if it was ambiguous or not would be to check if
313:: I believe you're referring to conforming with the principle criteria at
1151:
559:, and we also that the name of another Canadian actor, Douglas Campbell,
149:
1159:
1135:
726:, not when the guideline conflicts with policy. For example, since the
274:
266:
54:
My intent is to build it up over time to make it more and more useful.
1070:
to JDLI? JDLI says nothing about flexibility. That seems misleading.
942:
Why are you changing policy/guidelines while a dispute is in progress?
295:
Please explain how some conformist "guideline" overrides common usage.
1143:
1119:
595:
587:
579:
270:
667:
This article is about the capital of France. For other uses, see
1037:
To remember that "determining consensus" is about inferring how
747:
Knowledge:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages
327:
Knowledge:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages
335:"one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict"
73:
Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States
63:
Why are you against following the specific naming convention?
889:
might apply to me in a certain type of context, and that is
891:
One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
810:
Why is two entries better for the readers than one entry?
425:
Concision is not brevity, why do you treat it as if it is?
67:
I'm all for following a specific naming convention (e.g.,
802:
Why is two entries better for the readers than one entry?
1173:
1071:
913:
906:
What is your position on reverting inappropriate moves?
635:
398:
anyone proposes a change. That suggests instability.
363:
305:
246:
743:"editors may assume that the policy takes precedence."
627:
What is the advantage to a reader of title minimalism?
614:
does not necessarily mean "Tallahassee" is ambiguous.
473:
However, in the context of Knowledge title selection,
1169:
The ineffectiveness of moratoriums has been noted by
714:
406:
support the alternative, even if it's less concise.
1026:What is your motivation with regard to WP titles?
333:) clearly states that when there is a conflict,
1177:
303:User_talk:Born2cycle#A_less_friendly_suggestion
563:ambiguous because the article about him is at
582:, a suburb of Brussels is unambiguous, while
8:
1195:
455:"a concise account of the country's history"
866:, and, when people responded with comments
715:Aren't we required to follow the guideline?
646:: First, see the two sections just above:
98:, as does choosing names that are only as
937:Changing policy/guidelines during dispute
827:
69:Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(television)
962:moves? How do you reconcile that?": -->
377:avoiding unnecessary precision in titles
1196:But aren't such discussions disruptive?
1179:As to moratoriums: We all remember the
650:
133:User:Theo's Little Bot/unnecessary dab
94:has intrinsic value, as explained at
7:
1115:discussion is how we build consensus
850:However, WP:TE goes on to also say:
349:of results (I didn't look further).
791:good reason to ignore the guideline
655:
522:disambiguating only when necessary
419:User:Born2cycle/Why_minimal_titles
24:
569:Douglas Campbell (Canadian actor)
1046:User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle
828:Aren't you a tendentious editor?
777:also notes that such guidelines
573:disambiguate only when necessary
231:consensus of those participating
85:when disambiguation is required
1017:19:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
856:"frustrate proper discussions"
739:"only as precise as necessary"
735:"concise titles are preferred"
706:18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
414:This point is addressed here:
111:is clearly not the situation.
1:
984:Title determination is an art
872:frustrating proper discussion
729:"the canonical form ... is ]"
862:. Well, there, I started a
787:only as precise as necessary
549:only as precise as necessary
477:cannot mean a comprehensive
367:Title minimization, (a.k.a.
1242:
1191:) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
162:general naming conventions
621:
337:and, until that happens,
143:when there is no dab page
565:Douglas Campbell (actor)
188:behavior more than they
43:and the five pillars at
1203:status quo stonewalling
1104:RM proposal moratoriums
1193:
847:of article content.
669:Paris (disambiguation)
520:: The main benefit of
172:Change guideline first
1090:I link flexibilty to
622:SmokeyJoe's questions
329:(which is procedural
1059:Flexibility and JDLI
864:request for comments
612:Tallahassee, Florida
470:, for that topic.
100:precise as necessary
1040:community consensus
733:conflicts with the
697:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT
651:#Minimalist_titles
373:title succinctness
557:Nicholas Campbell
441:
353:Minimalist titles
1233:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1064:Why do you link
970:
969:
965:
710:Follow guideline
592:Laeken, Brussels
456:
439:
182:Not necessarily.
1241:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1198:
1164:Hillary Clinton
1111:
1106:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1074:
1061:
1028:
1023:
991:
986:
971:
967:
963:
961:
960:
955:
953:Title stability
944:
939:
908:
903:
901:Reverting moves
830:
825:
804:
799:
760:
755:
717:
712:
656:#Reader benefit
629:
624:
600:Laeken, Belgium
543:here means not
515:
510:
460:
454:
433:
427:
412:
369:title concision
360:
355:
297:
292:
179:
174:
120:
81:for good reason
65:
60:
34:
29:
22:
21:
20:
18:User:Born2cycle
12:
11:
5:
1239:
1237:
1197:
1194:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1073:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
990:
987:
985:
982:
959:
956:
954:
951:
943:
940:
938:
935:
931:
930:
926:
907:
904:
902:
899:
895:I have pledged
883:1/21/12 Update
868:as I requested
829:
826:
824:
821:
803:
800:
798:
795:
759:
756:
754:
753:Follow pattern
751:
716:
713:
711:
708:
674:
673:
659:
658:
653:
641:
640:
628:
625:
623:
620:
598:redirected to
584:Haren, Belgium
514:
511:
509:
508:Reader benefit
506:
483:SPECIAL:RANDOM
458:
457:
452:
443:
442:
429:
426:
423:
422:
421:
411:
408:
359:
356:
354:
351:
296:
293:
291:
288:
178:
175:
173:
170:
158:disambiguation
154:
153:
146:
136:
119:
116:
64:
61:
59:
56:
33:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1238:
1229:
1206:
1204:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1176:
1174:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:New York City
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1080:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1056:
1050:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1025:
1020:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1007:
1005:
999:
997:
988:
983:
981:
977:
975:
966:
957:
952:
950:
948:
941:
936:
934:
927:
923:
922:
921:
919:
915:
914:
912:
905:
900:
898:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
848:
846:
842:
838:
834:
822:
820:
818:
816:
812:
811:
808:
801:
796:
794:
792:
788:
784:
781:" (including
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
752:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
730:
725:
721:
709:
707:
705:
702:
698:
693:
689:
688:Paris, France
684:
679:
678:WP:COMMONNAME
672:
670:
665:
664:
663:
657:
654:
652:
649:
648:
647:
645:
639:
638:
637:
636:
634:
626:
619:
615:
613:
609:
603:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
576:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
552:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
532:is devoted.
531:
527:
523:
519:
512:
507:
505:
502:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:comprehensive
471:
469:
465:
453:
450:
449:
448:
447:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
424:
420:
417:
416:
415:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
364:
352:
350:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
306:
304:
301:
294:
289:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
262:
259:
258:
254:
252:
248:
247:
245:
241:
239:
234:
232:
228:
227:controversial
223:
221:
217:
213:
210:
206:
201:
199:
193:
191:
187:
183:
171:
169:
167:
163:
160:. But if the
159:
151:
147:
144:
140:
139:missing links
137:
134:
130:
129:
128:
124:
117:
115:
112:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
62:
57:
55:
52:
48:
46:
42:
38:
32:Why this FAQ?
31:
26:
19:
1207:
1199:
1178:
1168:
1148:Sega Genesis
1112:
1096:
1087:
1086:
1066:
1054:
1039:
1030:
1029:
1008:
1000:
995:
992:
978:
973:
972:
946:
945:
932:
917:
916:
910:
909:
897:to improve.
882:
881:
871:
867:
863:
855:
851:
849:
844:
840:
832:
831:
814:
813:
809:
806:
805:
786:
782:
778:
770:
766:
762:
761:
742:
728:
723:
719:
718:
692:WP:CONCISION
682:
675:
666:
660:
643:
642:
631:
630:
616:
607:
604:
590:would be at
577:
572:
560:
553:
540:
536:
534:
530:my user page
526:WP:PRECISION
521:
517:
516:
503:
499:recognizable
498:
494:
493:, including
486:
478:
474:
472:
464:Bill Clinton
459:
445:
444:
430:
428:
413:
404:
400:
396:
393:
389:
376:
372:
368:
366:
361:
346:
338:
334:
330:
322:
310:
309:
299:
298:
263:
260:
256:
255:
250:
249:
243:
242:
235:
226:
224:
215:
214:
202:
197:
194:
192:behavior.
189:
185:
181:
180:
155:
125:
121:
113:
103:
91:
89:
84:
80:
66:
53:
49:
36:
35:
1181:Berlin Wall
1132:Ivory Coast
1124:Cork (city)
1067:flexibility
1021:Motivations
797:Two entries
783:conciseness
491:WP:CRITERIA
487:conciseness
479:description
468:WP:CRITERIA
290:Conformist
1140:Hollywood
1128:Las Vegas
1004:the rules
771:generally
731:guideline
608:ambiguous
541:ambiguous
537:ambiguous
446:adjective
440:/kənˈsīs/
283:St. Louis
279:Las Vegas
92:concision
1152:New York
911:Source:
839:states,
775:WP:TITLE
539:or not (
431:con·cise
362:Source:
319:WP:TITLE
315:WP:TITLE
209:Catch-22
150:Plymouth
96:WP:TITLE
79:, etc.)
77:WP:NCROY
41:WP:TITLE
1185:Kraxler
1171:Kraxler
1160:Chicago
1136:Big Ben
1092:WP:JDLI
845:editing
769:, it's
683:because
545:primary
495:natural
300:Source:
275:Seattle
267:Chicago
238:WP:BOLD
190:dictate
186:reflect
166:primary
109:primary
45:WP:FIVE
1144:Taiwan
1120:Yogurt
1097:appear
1076:": -->
596:Laeken
588:Laeken
580:Laeken
331:policy
323:policy
271:Boston
220:WP:IAR
212:level.
205:WP:IAR
145:), and
1166:etc.
887:WP:TE
876:WP:TE
837:WP:TE
833:A: No
381:WP:AT
375:, or
347:pages
16:<
1189:talk
1078:edit
964:edit
785:and
745:See
737:and
602:.
501:.
497:and
385:WP:D
383:and
343:here
281:and
273:and
198:Then
1012:В²C
835:.
767:Yes
765:.
749:.
701:В²C
321:is
251:Yes
104:not
27:Why
1205:.
1175::
1162:,
1158:,
1154:,
1150:,
1146:,
1142:,
1138:,
1134:,
1130:,
1126:,
1122:,
1048:).
1010:--
823:TE
815:A:
807:Q:
793:.
724:No
722::
561:is
371:,
269:,
152:).
75:,
71:,
58:NC
37:A:
1187:(
1088:A
1082:]
1031:A
1015:☎
998:.
974:A
968:]
947:A
918:A
763:A
720:A
704:☎
671:.
644:A
518:A
311:A
307:.
135:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.