Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions

It says I am correct. "In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: ..." And in their examples they use a year in title.

If I see nearly all the other examples they give without years in a list or category, then I wouldn't know what year they are referring to. If I am scanning such a list of disasters I am probably reading it from a historical perspective, and want to see the years without opening up the articles.

I have noticed that editors who have worked on an article just assume almost everybody knows of it.

Why be so parsimonious? The year should be a minimum. Don't assume others around the world who read Wikipedia know about all this stuff. It is just another example of systemic bias on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are you proposing some kind of change to change to article title policy, I cannot figure out what it might be. If you're not, wrong venue. Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're writing as though you don't understand how encyclopedias work. All the details don't have to be in the title. They should be in the articles. If someone comes across a reference to the January 6 US Capitol Attack and finds the article on it here, the article will tell them that it happened in 2001. The title doesn't have to tell them that, just as the title doesn't have to be January 6, 2021, attack at the US Capitol by people who were convinced that the election was stolen. Largoplazo (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your list (plus one at the end of it) perfectly illustrates why Wikipedia should at least have the basics of What+Where+Year as described in

WP:NCWWW: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions

. Google searches will use the Wikipedia title in the search results. Wikipedia categories will use the Wikipedia title in the category contents. I edit a lot of tables. Table lists will use the the Wikipedia title. When one is scanning Google results, category lists, table lists, etc. one does not want to have to go to the article to jog the memory. If one ever had a memory of the event. Let's say I am scanning a category/list/table of disasters looking for a certain period of time. Can't do that without a year in the titles.

• February 6 Intifada (Lebanon)
• February 8 Declaration of Independence (South Korea)
• February 26 incident (Japan)
• February 28 incident (Republic of China)
• March 15 incident (Japan)
• March 18 Massacre (China)
• March 24 strike (Republic of Congo)
• April 9 tragedy (Georgian SSR)
• April 16th incident (Japan)
• April 26 Editorial (China)
• April 27 demonstrations (China)
• May 9 riots (Pakistan)
• May 14 Revolt (Portugal)
• May 15 incident (Japan)
• May 16 coup (South Korea)
• May 17 Agreement (Lebanon/Israel)
• May 17 Statement (Republic of China)
• May 24 measures (North Korea/South Korea)
• June 4th revolution in Ghana
• June 9 Deng speech (China)
• June 15th North–South Joint Declaration (North Korea/South Korea)
• June 15–16 events (Turkey)
• June 29 Declaration (South Korea)
• July 13 Penghu incident (Republic of China)
• July 15 Incident (China)
• August 1 Declaration (China)
• September 11 Great Armed Clan Feud of Matian (China)
• October 9 Revolution (Ecuador)
• October 22 Scud missile attack (Israel/Egypt)
• October Revolution (Russia)

From

WP:NCWWW: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions

In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened.

Concerning the above list unless you are from the country in question you likely have little or no idea what that article title refers to. The most ridiculous are the ones with just the month, day, and "incident".

It is a national systemic bias to assume people will know what those titles mean. Especially as the years pass. And what historical memory do most kids have of the events? Especially for events outside their countries.

Why not just put the year and country in the title now so that it is more meaningful in any type of list it shows up in: Google results, category lists, table lists.

Wikipedia is not paper. See

WP:NOTPAPER

. I am trying to figure out where this idea came from to make article titles short and cryptic for some people. We can spare some words for article titles. Maybe people did not know of redirects when this guideline came about to use the shortest title that made sense temporarily to people from that country. So they wanted short links in article prose. But redirects solve that problem.

I have 28,000+ edits currently on the Commons. On the Commons we try to make filenames as informative as possible so that people can more quickly find what they want. So that scanning a Commons search result list is as easy and informative as possible. So that one can find files that perfectly fit their needs: Year, event, location, and more. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… but this isn’t Commons. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of an encyclopedia is to tell readers what they don't already know about a subject. The title doesn't have to tell them. If they don't want to read an article about a subject that's caught their attention, why are they looking it up? :::Let's try some Google searches by year instead of by date: :::*2021 capitol attack: At the moment, the first listing I get is January 6 United States Capitol attack. :::*1984 uprising lebanon: The first listing is February 6 Intifada :::*1936 japan incident: The first listing is February 26 incident :::*1947 taiwan incident: The first listing is February 28 incident :::*1915 revolt portugal: The first listing is May 14 Revolt :::and so on. Search engines index the articles too, not just the titles.

Why do you keep harping on what's done on Common? This isn't Commons. The considerations are different, and we aren't bound to the ways of Commons. More to the point, a critical difference between Commons and Wikipedia relates directly to this issue: In Commons, there isn't an article that contains all the details. Here, we have articles for that. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've indicated that redirects are a potential solution here, and they are. All of those in your list could have (and some do) redirects that include the year. This would solve the search results problem.

"I am trying to figure out where this idea came from to make article titles short": this is part of our article title policy (see

WP:CONCISE

), and you can review the history to see how it came about.

Overall, I think NCWWW does a good job of reminding use to follow COMMONNAME before it digs into best practices when there isn't a common name. When there is, it often includes no date/month/year at all (Lebanese Civil War, Perry Expedition, Kyūjō incident). When a date or month is included in the common name, I don't see a reason that the year must automatically be included, when it isn't for other common names. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If

"English has about 450 million native speakers but, depending on the criterion chosen, can be said to have as many as two billion speakers." Many prefer English Wikipedia at times over their own-language Wikipedias. Because of the huge size of English Wikipedia compared to their native language. So don't assume people know of events in the US just by a date, or even a year. Or that they know of the US event at all. Or only very vaguely.

Recognition is a much stronger memory function than recall. So put more info in the article titles so people are more likely to recognize it (at least vaguely).

And Google is not going to put the (longer) redirect in its results. Google will put the existing article name in its results. So English speakers outside the US will still be baffled by the Google result. Say somebody is searching for "20th century revolutions" or "US disasters". Google might send them to a Wikipedia category:

• Category:20th-century revolutions

Note the lack of basic info (like the year) in many of the article names there. Not very helpful. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above list exists because those are the commonly used names for the events, and NCWWW begins with "If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name." If you have any evidence that those aren't the common names, you should start an RM. We shouldn't make our article title decisions based on Google, but my experience is that Google often gets you to the right article even if your search term is a redirect (like "LGBTQ"). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with Americans being 'baffled' (strong word, but whatever) with a Google result for a [day month event] in South Africa or Australia. So long as there's no need to disambiguate from another event on WP and this is how the media predominantly (or at least commonly, if no usage is predominant) refers to an event. And yes, the home country's press will generally determine an event's common name, as their coverage tends to be far more in depth and enduring. Less disambiguation will almost always win out here, provided it actually is a common name for the subject. Star Garnet (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly… if (for example) there were two different events that could be called “October 9 Revolution”, we might put the year in the title as a way to disambiguate them, but since this appears to be the only one, there is no need. Someone looking for information on the event will quickly find our article on it. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is looking for Russian revolutions in Google how are they going to tell if either of the October-named articles in the above list are about Russia without having to go to Wikipedia? And why would they necessarily want to look there versus the other results first? Why would they even know "October Revolution" is something about Russia? And let's say they look first at the Ecuador article, and just say "the hell with it" and go do something else. The inadequate title just wastes their time. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a common name where it is common. In many cases that is mainly in the home country, or nearby. That's the main point of this thread.

In spite of the fact that they both have singular common names,

• Category:20th-century revolutions

Previous replies above have not addressed that. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big flaw in your request: the premise that there is a discernible "common name" for an event like this, that

WP:COMMONNAME can even be applied. Any title you suggest is going to be only descriptive. There is no one established name, whether in the US or elsewhere. The title you've proposed, "January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack" is no more its name anywhere in the world than is "January 6 United States Capitol attack"—or "January 6 Capitol attack" or "January 6 insurrection" or "2021 Capitol insurrection" or "2021 US Capitol riot". A Google verbatim search for your preferred title[1]

, for me, yields only 58 results, not coming even close to establishing it as an internationally known common name for the event.

You might also try running a Google News query on the phrase, in quotes, "january 6 2021 united states capitol attack", and see how many exact matches you get. I'm getting only 16 hits, and I haven't checked to see whether any of them actually match exactly. Largoplazo (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully concur with the points made by Blueboar and Largoplazo. For notable events for which a common name is already established, we go with

WP:COMMONNAME for the title, and that common name rarely includes the year. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hurricanes are named. And it is the common name at least in the country or state. And that is sometimes what Wikipedia uses by itself. About half the time the year is added. Makes a lot more sense to have the year. What, we can't afford 4 more characters in the title? Makes it a lot easier to scan hurricane names in categories and lists when the year is included. Lists have to add the year anyway. It is dumb not to put it in the article title to begin with. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The common name may vary by country for the same event; People are unlikely to be using the whole article title as a search phrase: I'm gonna stop responding here since you're continuing to reiterate points that have already been addressed. There is no "common name". Common name is irrelevant. And I already pointed out to you that searches work just fine without the entire description being in the title because, guess what? Search engines index the content of the articles, not just the titles. And stop outdenting constantly, as though what you have to say has to be given primary prominence in the discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdenting is a common tool, and helps people on cell phones. It is not some deep-state plot.

You keep missing my points. Google may find the Wikipedia page, and place it in the search results along with many other results. But the reader may have no idea that the Wikipedia result in question is what they are looking for. Because the title is so short and cryptic. Like the titles (in your above list) named only Month-Day-"incident". There is no "what" in the title. So if the searcher was looking for the "what" they are out of luck. They are more likely to follow up on the other Google results first.

And you have yet to reply to many of my points. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, If you feel that a particular article title would benefit from having additional information (such as the year or location) included, you can always file a move request (see

WP:RM). Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have said "The year should be a minimum." I want the guideline changed for all the reasons I have pointed out.

At Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions the first paragraph should be a requirement, not an option. No one has time to go to the thousands of event pages to do RMs (requested moves). --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on… Timeshifter, are you saying that the year should be mentioned in the first paragraph (which is almost always done)… or are you saying the year should be included in the article title (which is sometimes done, but sometimes not done)? Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to respond to all your points when I choose to respond to one or more of them. That's an entirely different thing from you repeating your own points that I've already addressed as though they hadn't already been addressed. Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to be as unconstructive as the talk section on the January 6 page was. The guidelines are clear: we often use the years in the page titles of events, but there are many cases where we don't, and it should be a page-by-page decision for each case. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu is referring to the related discussion at Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack, and I have to agree. This entire thread amounts to nothing more than a culture-clash in a teapot. It can be summed up from two posts above:

I have 28,000+ edits currently on the Commons. On the Commons we try to make filenames as informative as possible so that people can more quickly find what they want. So that scanning a Commons search result list is as easy and informative as possible. ... --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah… but this isn’t Commons. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That's basically the whole discussion. The rest is details about why their rules don't work for us, and that's been explained ad infinitum, both here, and in the related discussion. Time to find a new hobby. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of you have addressed my points in this guideline thread. You are all still stuck on the January 6 article. Which by the way I withdrew my request from. This thread is about bigger issues like the long list from Largoplazo above. Nearly all of which violate the existing guideline at

WP:NCWWW

. And none of you have addressed the issue of these article names in categories like this:

Category:20th-century revolutions

There is similar discussion in a previous thread higher up:

#Restoring year guidance on dates to "Road and rail" section

Solution is to require all 3 parts of the first paragraph of

WP:NCWWW

to be in all event article titles: Specifically: Year, where, and what.

Exceptions for example, for some multi-state hurricanes where it would be problematic to list the states of the whole Eastern seaboard.

I see many Wikipedia lists for hurricanes, etc.. They all have a year column. It is a lot easier to make those lists if the year is in the article title rather than having to dig around in the first paragraph of many hurricane articles to find the hurricanes that fit the particular year range desired for the list article. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "None of you have addressed my points in this guideline thread", I've responded to non-content issue at your Talk page. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot. You still aren't addressing most of my points from this discussion. Do not leave messages on my talk page for any reason. I have the right to request that per

WP:TALK. Keep talk here. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Timeshifter, Your points have already been addressed by 17 editors at two threads, all of whom disagree with you. My addressing your points now would just exacerbate the

WP:TALK by raising this behavioral issue here. Please desist from your one-track campaign; everybody gets your point of view; everybody disagrees; please just knock it off now; can't you see that this is going nowhere? Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Fully concur with Mathglot's accurate analysis of the situation. Couldn't have said it better. Repeating your points or repeatedly asking people to rebut them will not make them any more persuasive. (They're not, for the reasons others have already stated.)

When everyone is against your position, always check to see if you have crashed into an unknown unknown situation. I always do.

For example, I was irritated for many years by other WP editors writing that a film "had its premiere" and wanted to try to develop a consensus on a uniform standard as to how to describe film premieres in WP articles. But when I actually did the research on this, I belatedly realized it was a West Coast/East Coast dialect issue. Californians prefer "the film premiered" and New Yorkers prefer "the film had its premiere". --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of

WP:NCWWW

as though it presents a strict requirement. It doesn't. It says that it doesn't. It gives examples of valid titles that don't include all three elements. (In case this isn't clear, a guideline doesn't start and end wherever anybody has thought to put a shortcut. The entire Conventions section is a unit that starts at the NCWWW shortcut and continues right past the NOYEAR shortcut.) It says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement. So you discussed it at the January 6 talk page, which was appropriate. But your representation both there and here that that article's title and the titles in the above list are a priori in violation of the Conventions provisions because they lack all three elements is false

You can come here and recommend that it be made a requirement. But don't argue (rather circularly) that it must be made a requirement because it's already a requirement. It isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was a requirement currently. I said it should be. I am saying that most of the titles in your list above violates the current guideline. Most people have no idea what most of those titles refer to. Because they are not commonly known outside their countries or regions. So therefore it would be helpful to add the countries as you did. And the years. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of the titles as violating something that you now acknowledge isn't a requirement, leading to the question of how they can, then, be in violation of it. You then argue that it should be made a requirement because some titles are violating it in its current status as a non-requirement. Sorry, your meaning is not clear. Largoplazo (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From

WP:NCWWW: "In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors:" Then it gives examples. I think nearly all in the above list fail the tests. But I agree that it is vague which is another reason I think it should be a straight requirement, and not optional. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

But I agree that it is vague which is another reason I think it should be a straight requirement, and not optional. What I'm reading there is that everything about Wikipedia writing should be in lock-step compliance with narrow, invariant rules and that it's terrible if anything is left to the community's or individual editors' case-by-case discretion. I disagree with that precept. Largoplazo (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I gave one exception in a previous reply. There will be more I am sure. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter… WHY (beyond “we do it at Commons”) do you think including the year of an event in the article title should be made a requirement? Is including the year in the first paragraph (and usually the first sentence) not enough? Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your previous replies, you make it very clear that you think it should be required… but not why it needs to be required. What would the benefit be? Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my previous replies some more. I gave various examples of why it should be required (with exceptions). --Timeshifter (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your examples, and I am still trying to understand why you think requiring years in these titles is so important. What would be the benefit of requiring the addition of the years? Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]