User:NewsAndEventsGuy/NaturalnessInArticleTitles
| Archive Link | used some other way | Substantive discussion |
|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 1 | X | |
| Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 2 | X | |
| Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 3 | X | |
| Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 4 | X | |
| Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 7 | X |
some of these cases... just because a book title and a concept differ in natural capitalization it is not OK to use non-disambiguated titles in these cases 89 KB (13,265 words) - 23:19, January 31, 2018
game. Titan rocket, in fact, is a redirect to Titan (rocket family). The natural languages are a slightly odd exception to the normal convention, but i'm 140 KB (25,230 words) - 21:02, September 15, 2012
*Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 10
Anderson 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Well, I am not sure, but it seems more natural for me to do like in German, sorting Cristiano da Matta under M. Hermano 279 KB (41,048 words) - 01:41, August 3, 2018
Wikipedia; since it was later propagated through so many articles, it was only natural that others began to copy the same method. The reason for the existence 839 KB (125,273 words) - 12:36, July 15, 2018
more precise naming conventions available. I see this as a logical and natural development to ensure maintainability as our collection of articles grows 120 KB (17,858 words) - 13:01, July 15, 2018
(UTC) Many naming issues are "POV", and rightly so, since we want the most natural name for English speakers, not the name spewed out by an algorithm. The 144 KB (21,299 words) - 14:04, June 25, 2016
the botanical pages in Wikipedia, even using the help of sources such as Natural England, the Countryside Agency and various national park authorities. 122 KB (17,815 words) - 21:01, September 15, 2012
naming conventions are not the main topic of this page.) To me, it seems natural that the word "conventions" should refer to the specific arrangements we've 121 KB (17,958 words) - 21:01, September 15, 2012
and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever 382 KB (57,143 words) - 21:01, September 15, 2012
electronic-only encyclopedia, so using the more common format is more natural. Anyway, you can take my argument and apply it to "unique" too - that most 145 KB (22,113 words) - 21:01, September 15, 2012
would be shocked to see one, but would find "Rhododendron Dry Cleaners" natural. Not the strongest argument, but not incohetence nor metaphysical declamation 133 KB (20,721 words) - 09:34, October 15, 2018
make it easy to use. Finding and linking to Polio is much easier and more natural than Poliomyelitis; that is the way of Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:27 131 KB (19,809 words) - 21:02, September 15, 2012
WikiProjects aren't people with rights. They're legal fictions without natural rights. They only have the rights given to them by the entity that permits 150 KB (22,457 words) - 16:51, September 14, 2018
notable, then a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be 83 KB (13,106 words) - 06:48, June 14, 2010
to group and title such sections and articles that way that seems most natural, even if it is something synthesized - this is a practical application 152 KB (22,894 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC) If a title falls natural out from sources, that makes sense. And I support a requirement that for 281 KB (43,823 words) - 19:51, July 28, 2018
why that's any more "natural" than "Smith, Paul" - if users of other encyclopedias are used to surname-first, then it's natural, when they arrive at Wikipedia 226 KB (34,546 words) - 22:24, September 30, 2014
cosmetic issue of conciseness vs. concision - "conciseness" sounds far more natural to me, and (the Revised) Fowler seems to agree, but maybe that just proves 202 KB (28,710 words) - 20:23, February 9, 2019
Naturalness and Precision. That is, if an article has a recognizable and natural name that is sufficiently precise to not be ambiguous, but no more precise 209 KB (29,819 words) - 22:27, April 2, 2012
titles are supposed to be recognizable and natural to our readers. Now, since what is recognizable and natural to readers is largely determined by what 204 KB (30,163 words) - 04:09, May 14, 2012
is say that we only use natural language disambiguation if it really is "natural language". It's inherent in the word "natural" that we don't use stilted 545 KB (84,378 words) - 10:23, August 24, 2019
a good argument to make, because if it's not the name then it won't be natural, recognizable, etc. But in this case usage in reliable sources indicates 507 KB (77,910 words) - 05:39, January 2, 2016
WP title should be natural?? What does that mean? You can’t apply the definitions of the word natural to it. What is an un-natural title? We describe 502 KB (75,492 words) - 22:53, February 18, 2015
in parentheses after the name (example), although in some cases a more natural or conventional method is used (examples: commas, kings). In a few areas 620 KB (92,184 words) - 09:01, October 14, 2018
assumed to be already Recognizable and Natural - it explains how to (precisely) Disambiguate: by improving Natural, Concise, Consistent Descriptiveness 335 KB (48,664 words) - 23:21, August 24, 2014
if comma-separated disambiguation is not a natural disambiguation. It seems natural to me, and if natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical 339 KB (49,746 words) - 23:51, July 3, 2015
cannot both imply obligation. 4. How do "should" and "must" overlap? In the natural language used by practically everyone on Wikipedia, they are not at all 303 KB (44,781 words) - 06:41, September 26, 2012
recognizable than the modern one... the historic name will also be far more natural and consistent (since it is likely that the geo-article about the location 304 KB (43,076 words) - 21:33, August 8, 2020
misrepresentation, it is natural that I feel I am being shouted down and treated as incompetent or a troll, when I am neither. And natural, too, that I won't 356 KB (42,881 words) - 12:03, December 14, 2013
in articles about natural disasters, even if they are bona fide cases. Thus, Hurricane Katrina might be the most expensive US natural disasters, but the 329 KB (49,291 words) - 06:41, June 21, 2013
unusual parenthetical style when a natural noun phrase will do the job? Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Which natural noun phrase are you referring 301 KB (44,726 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
*Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 43
of recognizability and naturalness. Sometimes a layman's term is more natural or recognizable than a specialist's term, but we deal with those in a variety 301 KB (48,010 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
under WP:PRECISE and point 2 of WP:NATURAL, which says to use a parenthetical disambiguator if there's no natural disambiguation. So, I think there must 336 KB (52,891 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
I think that we should aim for natural disambiguation over parenthetical, as it is more likely to coincide with natural search terms. If there are many 294 KB (42,068 words) - 01:16, August 3, 2018
is natural and recognizable. Are the higher quality reliable sources, like scholarly journals, going to use names that are more likely to be natural and 290 KB (43,424 words) - 19:59, February 23, 2018
contrived natural disambiguation, thus not a natural disambiguation. If no one says "That's a mustang horse over there", it is contrived. If it is natural to 215 KB (30,098 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
precise, or to satisfy one of the other WP:CRITERIA, but WP:NATURAL tells us to use natural phrasing when possible instead of resorting to a parenthetical 256 KB (37,418 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
*Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 49
English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME" 250 KB (37,693 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
*Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 50
that is the one that the majority of our readers will recognize and find natural. At the moment it is Kiev... that may change, but it has not changed YET 271 KB (39,902 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
characters as possible. Therefore, disambiguation, whether parenthetical or natural, should only be introduced when the subject of the article is not the primary 297 KB (42,821 words) - 21:34, November 22, 2017
here to "Intuitiveness" and "intuitively", and reserve the word "natural" for natural disambiguation (or find an alternative to that phrase; either way 300 KB (39,267 words) - 12:44, November 22, 2018
presentation of men's and women's topics. However, WP:NATURAL specifically presents: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name 264 KB (37,606 words) - 01:38, September 16, 2015
arguably justified by the current provisions presented in WP:NATURAL which presents: Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that 298 KB (39,559 words) - 02:58, August 3, 2018
policy of natural disambiguation. Anything in English (with or without parentheses) is natural language, but titles using parentheses are not natural disambiguation 301 KB (42,721 words) - 02:19, August 16, 2018
(talk) 21:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Should parenthetical titles be kept over natural disambiguation (i.e. a full name) due to recognizability if the subject 288 KB (40,540 words) - 02:14, August 15, 2019
rather a descriptive title than "natural" disambiguation (or what is described as such in the policy: there natural disambiguation is described as a somewhat 295 KB (42,874 words) - 02:20, April 29, 2020
justified for recognizability or consistency, then the preference order is NATURAL, COMMA, PARENTHETICAL. This is sufficient discouragement of the parenthetical 159 KB (22,415 words) - 02:30, August 7, 2020
====
[edit]standard English, it should be used instead of the most common name, as a "natural" disambiguator. For example, the word "English" commonly refers to either 21 KB (3,261 words) - 05:17, July 21, 2011
while. Feels good. It's also important to understand that it's entirely natural for early participants from the "visionary" stage of any organization (of]]