text:
ArXiv

arXiv (pronounced as "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi ⟨χ⟩) is an open-access repository of electronic preprints and postprints (known as e-prints) approved for posting after moderation, but not peer review. It consists of scientific papers in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, electrical engineering, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, mathematical finance and economics, which can be accessed online. In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived on the arXiv repository before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Some publishers also grant permission for authors to archive the peer-reviewed postprint. Begun on August 14, 1991, arXiv.org passed the half-million-article milestone on October 3, 2008, had hit a million by the end of 2014 and two million by the end of 2021. As of April 2021, the submission rate is about 16,000 articles per month.

History

arXiv was made possible by the compact TeX file format, which allowed scientific papers to be easily transmitted over the Internet and rendered client-side. Around 1990, Joanne Cohn began emailing physics preprints to colleagues as TeX files, but the number of papers being sent soon filled mailboxes to capacity. Paul Ginsparg recognized the need for central storage, and in August 1991 he created a central repository mailbox stored at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) that could be accessed from any computer. Additional modes of access were soon added: FTP in 1991, Gopher in 1992, and the World Wide Web in 1993. The term e-print was quickly adopted to describe the articles.

It began as a physics archive, called the LANL preprint archive, but soon expanded to include astronomy, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology and, most recently, statistics. Its original domain name was xxx.lanl.gov. Due to LANL's lack of interest in the rapidly expanding technology, in 2001 Ginsparg changed institutions to Cornell University and changed the name of the repository to arXiv.org. It is now hosted principally by Cornell, with five mirrors around the world.

arXiv was an early adopter and promoter of preprints. Its success in sharing preprints was one of the precipitating factors that led to the later movement in scientific publishing known as open access. Mathematicians and scientists regularly upload their papers to arXiv.org for worldwide access and sometimes for reviews before they are published in peer-reviewed journals. Ginsparg was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2002 for his establishment of arXiv. The annual budget for arXiv was approximately $826,000 for 2013 to 2017, funded jointly by Cornell University Library, the Simons Foundation (in both gift and challenge grant forms) and annual fee income from member institutions. This model arose in 2010, when Cornell sought to broaden the financial funding of the project by asking institutions to make annual voluntary contributions based on the amount of download usage by each institution. Each member institution pledges a five-year funding commitment to support arXiv. Based on institutional usage ranking, the annual fees are set in four tiers from $1,000 to $4,400. Cornell's goal is to raise at least $504,000 per year through membership fees generated by approximately 220 institutions.

In September 2011, Cornell University Library took overall administrative and financial responsibility for arXiv's operation and development. Ginsparg was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as saying it "was supposed to be a three-hour tour, not a life sentence". However, Ginsparg remains on the arXiv's Scientific Advisory Board and its Physics Advisory Committee.

In January 2022, arXiv began assigning DOIs to articles, in collaboration with DataCite.

Data format
Each arXiv paper has a unique identifier:

 * , e.g. ,
 * , e.g. ,
 * for older papers, e.g..

Different versions of the same paper are specified by a version number at the end. For example,. If no version number is specified, the default is the latest version.

arXiv uses a category system. Each paper is tagged with one or more categories. Some categories have two layers. For example,  is the "Trading and Market Microstructure" category within "quantitative finance". Other categories have one layer. For example,  is "high energy physics experiments".

Moderation process and endorsement
Although arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions; they may recategorize any that are deemed off-topic, or reject submissions that are not scientific papers, or sometimes for undisclosed reasons. The lists of moderators for many sections of arXiv are publicly available, but moderators for most of the physics sections remain unlisted.

Additionally, an "endorsement" system was introduced in 2004 as part of an effort to ensure content is relevant and of interest to current research in the specified disciplines. Under the system, for categories that use it, an author must be endorsed by an established arXiv author before being allowed to submit papers to those categories. Endorsers are not asked to review the paper for errors but to check whether the paper is appropriate for the intended subject area. New authors from recognized academic institutions generally receive automatic endorsement, which in practice means that they do not need to deal with the endorsement system at all. However, the endorsement system has attracted criticism for allegedly restricting scientific inquiry.

A majority of the e-prints are also submitted to journals for publication, but some work, including some very influential papers, remain purely as e-prints and are never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A well-known example of the latter is an outline of a proof of Thurston's geometrization conjecture, including the Poincaré conjecture as a particular case, uploaded by Grigori Perelman in November 2002. Perelman appears content to forgo the traditional peer-reviewed journal process, stating: "If anybody is interested in my way of solving the problem, it's all there [on the arXiv] –let them go and read about it". Despite this non-traditional method of publication, other mathematicians recognized this work by offering the Fields Medal and Clay Mathematics Millennium Prizes to Perelman, both of which he refused.

While arXiv does contain some dubious e-prints, such as those claiming to refute famous theorems or proving famous conjectures such as Fermat's Last Theorem using only high-school mathematics, a 2002 article which appeared in Notices of the American Mathematical Society described those as "surprisingly rare". arXiv generally re-classifies these works, e.g. in "General mathematics", rather than deleting them; however, some authors have voiced concern over the lack of transparency in the arXiv screening process.

Submission formats
Papers can be submitted in any of several formats, including LaTeX, and PDF printed from a word processor other than TeX or LaTeX. The submission is rejected by the arXiv software if generating the final PDF file fails, if any image file is too large, or if the total size of the submission is too large. arXiv now allows one to store and modify an incomplete submission, and only finalize the submission when ready. The time stamp on the article is set when the submission is finalized.

Access
The standard access route is through the arXiv.org website or one of several mirrors. Other interfaces and access routes have also been created by other un-associated organisations.

Metadata for arXiv is made available through OAI-PMH, the standard for open access repositories. Content is therefore indexed in all major consumers of such data, such as BASE, CORE and Unpaywall. As of 2020, the Unpaywall dump links over 500,000 arxiv URLs as the open access version of a work found in CrossRef data from the publishers, making arXiv a top 10 global host of green open access.

Finally, researchers can select sub-fields and receive daily e-mailings or RSS feeds of all submissions in them.

Copyright status of files
Files on arXiv can have a number of different copyright statuses:

 * 1) Some are public domain, in which case they will have a statement saying so.
 * 2) Some are available under either the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license or the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license.
 * 3) Some are copyright to the publisher, but the author has the right to distribute them and has given arXiv a non-exclusive irrevocable license to distribute them.
 * 4) Most are copyright to the author, and arXiv has only a non-exclusive irrevocable license to distribute them.

title: ArXiv


text:
Talk:Kernel

Kernel of a group?
3. Something to do with group theory, but I don't know what. Can anyone fill in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.102.232 (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

Removed the "Seed" sense of "kernel"
IANAB (I am not a biologist), but the following looks like a definition that one would find in a dictionary, and unless this could be augmented by further scientific discussion (which would, specifically, use the term "kernel"), I think we should leave it for dictionaries:
 * The kernel is the essential part of a seed; all that is within the seed walls; the edible substance contained in the shell of a nut; hence, anything included in a shell, husk, or integument; as, the kernel of a nut. Also a single seed or grain; as, a kernel of corn.

I fully admit I could be wrong, and I invite somebody to prove that this isn't just a definition of an ordinary word but an essential and expandable (though stubby) discussion of a piece of jargon. Otherwise, please see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Larry Sanger —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 25 April 2002 (UTC).

 * Better yet, make Kernel a disambiguation page, and have it link to seed.
 * Revert it if you don't like it.
 * --Damian Yerrick —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 25 April 2002 (UTC).

 * OK, I'll revert it. (I don't see the point in having the link to the seed article; the point of a disambiguation page is not to list all the possible senses of a word, but to point to existing and potential articles by the name in question.) --Larry Sanger —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 25 April 2002 (UTC).

 * Fixed! Fast fast fast service...--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kernel of a homomorphism; lead sentence
It seems we should link directly to kernel of a homomorphism instead of to a stub kernel (mathematics) which then links to (and repeats the definition of) kernel of a homomorphism. Also, I find it helpful to give a one-sentence description to orient people who end up on this page. AxelBoldt —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 26 April 2002 (UTC).

Convolution kernel
At least for the part about "convolution kernel", this links to "convolution" and "linear filter" and neither of those pages has any occurrence of the word "kernel". Seems like something should be done about that... although I guess that is more an issue for those pages than for this one... --omgoleus —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Kernel of electrons
Chem student here, wanting to know why none of these have "kernel" as a section electrons in an atom. (Don't ask which section that's what I was hoping to find out... but I know that there is such a thing as a kernel of electrons)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.136.152 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambig page still needs wikifying
Unclear why tag was remove from article space but the page is still a mess and needs Wikifying. Benjiboi 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done based on MOS:DAB and WP:D using Arc as an example of a disambiguation page without the word "(disambiguation)" in the page title as per WP:D.Philhower (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Linux listed specifically?
Do we want each kernel from computing listed specifically? There is a lot of them that could be added... kgoetz (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kernel (mathematics): merge?
Kernel (mathematics) is another disambiguation page listing (give or take) the same things listed in the Mathematics section - although it goes into more detail than just listing them. I think we should either merge it onto this page, or remove the rest of the mathematics section for a single link to Kernel (mathematics). Thoughts? CarrieVS (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * On the face of it, Kernel (mathematics) appears to be a distinctly different style of page than Kernel, so that a merge would look odd. That would seem to favor swapping the content of the mathematics section for a link to the other page.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I thought that too; the thing that stopped me from 'being bold' is the 'Kernel of a homomorphism' discussion above. It seems that used to be the case and consensus was to change it. But I think it's misleading to have Kernel (mathematics) listed in the middle of the section, so I'm changing it for now and if it's objected to... CarrieVS (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Done that. There were three entries not in Kernel (mathematics); I've listed them on the talk page there as I'm not certain exactly where to put them. CarrieVS (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

what about Kernel (statistics)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(statistics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.177.45 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's covered by Kernel (mathematics). --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game#The_kernel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alookard (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Kernel computer science" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kernel computer science. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Kernel


text:
Wikipedia:Article titles

A Wikipedia article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content, and the basis for the article's page name and URL. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.

The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or, if the article topic has no name, it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.

This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page does detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view.

If necessary, an article's title can be changed by a page move. For information on page move procedures, see Moving a page, and Requested moves.

Deciding on an article title
based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains. A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:   These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise title United Kingdom is preferred over the more precise title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
 * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
 * Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.

Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may require disambiguation.

Use commonly recognizable names
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English, below.

Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used.

The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability:

People
 * Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)
 * Mansa Musa (not: Musa I)
 * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
 * J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling)
 * Bono (not: Paul Hewson)
 * Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius)
 * Shirley Temple (not: Shirley Temple Black)

Places
 * Germany (not: Deutschland)
 * Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu)
 * North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
 * Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster)

Scientific and technical topics
 * Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid)
 * Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine)
 * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)
 * Polio (not: poliomyelitis)
 * Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic)

Product names and fictional characters
 * Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1)
 * Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino)
 * Darth Vader (not: Anakin Skywalker)

Other topics
 * Cello (not: Violoncello)
 * FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football)
 * Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)
 * Proxima Centauri (not: V645 Centauri or Alpha Centauri C)

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Search engine test.

Name changes
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.

Neutrality in article titles
Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.

Non-neutral but common names
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use.

Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point 2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points 1 and 2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle.
 * 1) Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
 * 2) Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

Non-judgmental descriptive titles
In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)

However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)

Explicit conventions
Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases, these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. When it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.

Precision
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand, Columbia would not be precise enough to unambiguously identify the Columbia River.

Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. For instance:
 * Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.
 * Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the concision and recognizability criteria).
 * Leeds North West is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) specify the addition of the qualifier in Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) with a redirect from Leeds North West.
 * M-185 is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) specify adding the qualifier M-185 (Michigan highway) with a redirect from M-185.

Disambiguation
It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the precision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen". This may result in acceptable inconsistencies; the article on chickens is found at Chicken, but the article on turkeys is at Turkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the country Turkey.

As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:
 * 1) If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.
 * 2) If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated.

When deciding on which disambiguation method(s) to use, all article titling criteria are weighed in:

Natural disambiguation
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names.
 * Example: The word "French" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, French language and French people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, hand fan is preferable to fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so Elevator is the title of the article on the lifting device.

Comma-separated disambiguation
With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire (see Geographic names). Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales uses a substantive title as part of the usual Names of royals and nobles conventions, not as a disambiguating term). However, titles such as Tony Blair and Battle of Waterloo are preferred over alternatives such as "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton" and "Waterloo, Battle of", in which a comma is used to change the natural ordering of the words.

Parenthetical disambiguation
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.
 * Example: The word "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names, so instead we use parenthetical disambiguation: Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), and Mercury (mythology).

Descriptive title
Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.
 * Examples: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife (see )

Combinations of the above
These are exceptional, in most cases to be avoided as per WP:CONCISE. Commas and parentheses (round brackets) are the only characters that can be used without restriction to separate a disambiguating term in an article title. Colons can be used in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages.
 * Example: "comma-separated" + "parenthetical": Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) (see )

When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic
Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g. iron maiden vs. Iron Maiden, or friendly fire vs. the other meanings listed at Friendly Fire. The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours.

However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered: And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling:
 * Renaming "Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem" to "Passio (Pärt)" for the ambiguity of the first expression with Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem.
 * redirects to Cold War, with the broad concept discussed at Cold war (term)
 * redirects to Grey Poupon; an album of that name is at Gray Poupon (album)

In certain instances, plural forms may also be used to naturally distinguish articles; see for details.

Concision
The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.

For example:
 * The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, was formerly State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island was the most concise title to fully identify the subject.
 * The full name of Fiona Apple's 1999 album is 90 words and 444 characters long, but it is abbreviated in sources (and in its Wikipedia title) to When the Pawn... (see also WP:SUBTITLES).

Exceptions exist for biographical articles. For example, given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision. Thus Oprah Winfrey (not Oprah) and Jean-Paul Sartre (not J. P. Sartre). See Naming conventions (people).

Consistency
To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. However, there has been a history of consensus among editors regarding several areas where consistency does not control titling:
 * Disambiguation: for example, the use of a parenthetical disambiguator in Georgia (country) does not support an argument that all country articles should use them, e.g. for Azerbaijan (country) or Armenia (country). This is also the case with natural disambiguation: the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to have Guadalajara City instead of Guadalajara.
 * Spellings that differ between varieties of English: Orange (colour) and Lime (color) peaceably coexist, as do motorcycle tyre and snow tire.
 * It is not considered important for article titles on the English Wikipedia to be consistent with titles used by the corresponding articles on other language versions of Wikipedia.

English-language titles
On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example: coup d'état).

The English-language names of some topics may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English, Australian English, etc.).

Foreign names and anglicization
The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).

If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. because Rheintal and Moseltal are translated Rhine Valley and Moselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions can benefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow.

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be romanized. Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of romanization conventions by language, see Romanization.

Wikipedia generally uses the character æ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligature æsc. For Latin- or Greek-derived words (e.g. Paean, Amoeba, Estrogen), use e, ae, or oe, depending on modern usage and the national variety of English used in the article.

In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.

National varieties of English
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense).

Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and used in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names.

Treatment of alternative names

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names –including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages –or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the "u", Orange (colour)'s title does not.

All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization).

Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.

Article title format
The following points are used in deciding on questions not covered by the five principles; consistency on these helps avoid duplicate articles:

Use sentence case
Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. When this is done, the title is simple to link to in other articles: Northwestern University offers more graduate work than a typical liberal arts college. Note that the capitalization of the initial letter is ignored in links. For initial lowercase letters, as in eBay, see the technical restrictions page. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Proper names.

Use singular form
Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (plurals).

Avoid ambiguous abbreviations
Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser). It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title. Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation (e.g. Conservative Party (UK), Georgia (U.S. state)). For more details, see.

Avoid definite and indefinite articles
Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a, and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown). They needlessly lengthen article titles, and interfere with sorting and searching. For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name).

Use nouns
Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.

Do not enclose titles in quotes
Article titles that are quotes (or song titles, etc.) are not enclosed in quotation marks (e.g. To be, or not to be is the article title, whereas "To be, or not to be" is a redirect to that article). An exception is made when the quotation marks are part of a name or title (as in the TV episode Marge Simpson in: "Screaming Yellow Honkers"  or the album "Heroes" (David Bowie album)).

Do not create subsidiary articles
Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)"; use Transport in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-article namespaces; .)

Follow reliable sources for names of persons
When deciding whether to use middle names, or initials, follow the guidelines at WP:Middle names, which means using the form most commonly used by reliable sources (e.g. John F. Kennedy, J. P. Morgan, F. Scott Fitzgerald), with few if any exceptions. See also the Concision section above.

Special characters
There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles, due to how MediaWiki stores and matches the titles. The following characters cannot be used at all:

There are restrictions on titles containing colons, periods, and some other characters, which may be addressed through Template:Correct title. Technically, all other Unicode characters can be used in page titles. However, some characters should still be avoided or require special treatment:
 * Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omits diacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.) However, avoid combining diacritical marks, which are difficult to type and interfere with adjacent characters.
 * Quotation marks (avoid them): Double ("...") and single quotation marks ('...'), as well as variations such as typographic (curly) quotation marks (“...”), "low-high" quotation marks („...“), guillemets («...»), and angled quotation marks or backticks (`...´) should be avoided in titles. Exceptions can be made when they are part of the proper title (e.g. "A" Is for Alibi) or required by orthography (e.g. "Weird Al" Yankovic, Fargesia 'Rufa').
 * Similarly, various apostrophe(-like) variants (’ ʻ ʾ ʿ ᾿ ῾ ‘ ’ c), should generally not be used in page titles. A common exception is the simple apostrophe character (', same glyph as the single quotation mark) itself (e.g. Anthony d'Offay), which should, however, be used sparingly (e.g. Quran instead of Qur'an and Bismarck (apple) instead of Malus domestica 'Bismarck'). If, exceptionally, other variants are used, a redirect with the apostrophe variant should be created (e.g. 'Elisiva Fusipala Tauki'onetuku redirects to ʻElisiva Fusipala Taukiʻonetuku).
 * See also WP:Manual of Style (punctuation) and MOS:APOSTROPHE.

 * Symbols (avoid them): Symbols such as "♥", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles. This includes non-Latin punctuation such as the characters in Unicode's CJK Symbols and Punctuation block.
 * Characters not supported on all browsers (avoid them): If there is a reasonable alternative, avoid characters that are so uncommon that not all browser and operating system combinations will render them. For example, the article Fleur-de-lis carries that title rather than the symbol ⚜ itself, which many readers would see as just a rectangular box.
 * Fractions: See MOS:FRAC. Templates and LaTeX-style markup cannot be used in article titles.

Italics and other formatting
Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.

The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, storylines, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud). Many of these titles should also be in title case.

Italic formatting cannot be part of the actual (stored) title of a page; adding single quotes to a page title will cause those quotes to become part of the URL, rather than affecting its appearance. A title or part of it is made to appear in italics with the use of the DISPLAYTITLE magic word or the Italic title template. In addition, certain templates, including Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox film, and Template:Infobox album, by default italicize the titles of the pages they appear on; see those template pages for documentation. See on the technical restrictions page for further details.

Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generally not be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics). Quotation marks (such as around song titles) would not require special techniques for display, but are nevertheless avoided in titles; see above.

Standard English and trademarks
Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.

Exceptions include article titles with the first letter lowercase and the second letter uppercase, such as iPod and eBay. For these, see.

Titles containing "and"
Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts "big-endian" and "little-endian". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and", as in Promotion and relegation, Hellmann's and Best Foods, Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal and Pioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9. (The individual terms – such as Pioneer 6 – should redirect to the combined page, or be linked there via a disambiguation page or hatnote if they have other meanings.)

It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as in Canada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as at yin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as in Electrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such as Relegation and promotion) should be redirects.

Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism"; however, "Media coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources.

Considering changes
Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made.

Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.

In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad.

Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Proposed naming conventions and guidelines
Proposals for new naming conventions and guidelines should be advertised on this page's talk page, at requests for comment, the Village Pump, and any related pages. If a strong consensus has formed, the proposal is adopted and is added to the naming conventions category.

New naming conventions for specific categories of articles often arise from WikiProjects. For a manually updated list of current and former proposals, see Proposed naming conventions and guidelines.

title: Wikipedia:Article titles


text:
Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 5

Links w/in Wikipedia Name-space

 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (disputed place names)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (legislation)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pieces of music)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (protected areas)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (toponymy)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes)

international:
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (chinese)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (japanese)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)

people:
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (monarchs)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people with the same name)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (pseudonyms)

science, maths, technical
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (biology)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (file formats)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems)

"History of X" vs "Xsh history"
What's better: "History of X" or "Xsh history"? This is a dilemma that has plagued Wikipedians since the dawn of time. A new naming convention has been proposed to deal with this issue. See Naming conventions (country-specific topics) for details. - Pioneer-12 12:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inactivity ?

 * 1) In the "Links w/in Wikipedia Name-space" section of this talk page there are a lot of naming convention links listed. Why have they not been added to the naming conventions page ?
 * 2) In the "Conventions under consideration" section there are some topics listed. For how long will they be under consideration, can't that section be merged totally with section 2 - "Other specific conventions". I don't see any major discussions happening on those topics anyway. Jay 05:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Treaty of ..
Compare Treaty of London with Treaty of Madrid and Treaty of Paris. Two styles are in use:
 * , XXXX
 * e.g. Treaty of London, 1359
 * (XXXX)
 * e.g. Treaty of Paris (1259)

Is there a preferred style for this? --Cfailde 21:04, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

 * Personally, I prefer the parenthetical disambiguation form. Makes it easier to hide the date via the pipe trick if desired, for example if you want to include a wikified link to the date along with a link to the treaty. older ≠ wiser 21:14, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Article Titles
There's obviously a great deal of emphasis placed on ensuring similar articles follow a template; wickifying. However, what about article titles? This seems to be a problem widespread across Wikipedia, usually on lists of... articles, for example, the following all exist for the National Park articles:

 * List of National Parks in country
 * List of National Parks of country
 * National Parks of country
 * Country's National Parks

The same is true for football teams, rivers, and many more. This means for that many people assume a page doesnt exist because nothing appears when they type in the title that is used on other similar articles.

At the very least we should be activly encouraging users to insert redirects, but should be looking to wickify article titles.

Sorry to go on! rant over :P Grunners 14:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * See also WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject Protected Areas. Rmhermen 16:58, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Amen on consistent titling. I think every list should be entitled "List of X" myself, so as to clearly distinguish non-list articles on the same subject, but not everybody goes along. If there's an associated wikiproject, bring it up there, otherwise "be bold" and do your part to arrange things more sensibly. Stan 15:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Consistency is nice in theory, but it doesn't always make sense. National parks of Scotland is an article about National parks of Scotland, not a list of them. Since there are only two of them, and neither are true national parks, List of national parks of Scotland would not be a sensible title. Angela. 03:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Starting a title with the word The
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name).

nd's, st's, th's
This article gets grotesquely spaced-out on my browser by all the superscripted 'nd's and 'th's in the main text. I can't find style for this issue, but I hope it can be discouraged. Any advice? Adhib

 * I don't see any need for superscripts. Maurreen 04:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see the need either. However, there's no need to write out the number either, so plain "82nd" will suffice.  Is there a way to change this, or is this the way the article came out? SujinYH 01:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Concepts attributed to multiple researchers
What is the proper style for articles about independently or jointly discovered properties? For example, the Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension is credited to Felix Hausdorff and Abram Samoilovitch Besicovitch, but it is often called Hausdorff dimension. Which name should be used? It seems POV to favor Hausdorff over Besicovitch. -- 20:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe the general convention is to use the name by which something is most commonly known. Maurreen 06:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed so. The "most-common-name" rule is the way to avoid POV in such cases.  —Lowellian (talk)   03:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Forbidden characters in page titles
Article says asterix (*) and ampersand (&) should not be used in a page title, but makes no mention of hash (#) and angle brackets (> and <). Naming conventions (technical restrictions) in its excluded characters list makes no mention of * or &, and says #, > and < cannot be used. Who is right ? Jay 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Please excuse the gratuitous pedantry, but one of the symbols you speak of is called an 'asterisk', not an 'asterix'. --Smack 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hyphenated multiple modifiers
I moved Hardware random number generator to Hardware random-number generator, because the former usage is grammatically improper. It was then promptly moved back by User:Matt Crypto, who cited a Google test. Is there a policy on this kind of predominant yet ungrammatical usage? --Smack 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with you about using the hyphen. In my view, people sometimes misuse Google. Maurreen 05:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to my books & papers at the moment, but have a look at Google Scholar, which indexes academic publications. Again, there is a strong trend not to include a hyphen: . — Matt Crypto 10:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here a hyphen should be used as it makes the title unambiguous. I know it's about a generator of random numbers. Without the hyphen it could be a number generator that, for some reason, is random (maybe it's jerry-built or something). Although the tendency is for hyphens to disappear, they are often useful, particularly when dealing with multiple adjectives. Where they are useful, we should think of the reader, and keep them in. jguk 10:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, the meaning that is meant is that it is a random "generator of numbers", rather than a generator of "random numbers" (using quotes to disambiguate). Contrast with pseudorandom number generator. It is the generators that are random or pseudorandom, not the numbers. For example, 3 isn't a random number, but the act of rolling a dice is a random number generator. So you'd probably want to hyphenate it "hardware random number-generator", if anything.

I think you are wrong. The number is random. If I have a bunch of number generator cards that fit in the card slot on my computer and I pick one at random then I have selected a random number generator.--Gbleem 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * However, I do think we should follow the usage conventions of the academic literature. Most grammar rules have exceptions. — Matt Crypto 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * According to our article on randomness, I gather that randomness is a property of a collection of numbers. --Smack 17:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In German we say "Zufallszahl" (=Randomnumber), so I guess randomness is a property as Smack said. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ohio school districts
I posted an item for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. special districts on what to name articles on our school districts. I'd appreciate Wikipedians looking at my query and posting comments there. PedanticallySpeaking 18:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Help naming Feline/Canine Diabetes article please
Hi all -- I have a new article to write, based on all the research I just had to do on Diabetes Mellitus in Cats and Dogs. (Yes I now have a diabetic cat, and there's a lot out there on the topic, but nothing on Wikipedia.) It's bigger than a section in the "Diabetes mellitus" article should be.

But what to call it?

 * Canine and Feline Diabetes
 * Diabetes (canine)
 * Diabetes (feline)
 * Diabetes (canine and feline)
 * Diabetes in Dogs and Cats
 * ... etc?

I feel like the article would work best as a single article, as most of the information about dogs and cats is either common to both or has important contrasts between them. But the names that combine the articles just don't look very Wikipedia-like to me.

So should I write the article and leave the naming to a big discussion later?

Thanks in advance, Steve --Steverapaport 00:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I vote for "*Diabetes in cats and dogs". Just sounds better to me. Maurreen 05:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Diabetes in cats and dogs it shall be. Thanks!  --Steverapaport 15:15, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I vote for putting in redirects, especially from the first two names. I'll go ahead and link to them all to make that easier.  I've even got a few more: Feline Diabetes, Canine Diabetes, Diabetes in dogs, Diabetes in cats.--Joel 05:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming convenion for manuscripts that have no name
An article about an illuminated manuscript was recently listed on VfD for having an "ugly" name. At the time that I created this article I believed that the manuscript had no name, so I created one using the library shelf number as a part of the title. That listing has prompted me to write a proposal for a naming convention for articles about manuscripts without names. The proposal can be found here. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. Dsmdgold 11:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Intactivist
I claim "intactivist" is wrongly named because:

 * Naming conventions (adjectives) means it should be "intactivism" instead.

 * Naming conventions (common names) means "intactivism" should be "genital integrity advocacy" instead.

 * Any "genital integrity advocacy" should be merged with the existing "genital integrity".

Opinions? —Ashley Y 23:02, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

 * I agree, it should be merged and redirected. -Sean Curtin 06:21, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. - As a noun, intactivist does not fall under the naming convention for adjectives. The origin of the term intactivist (intact+activist) and the fact that it applies to a person, not a movement sets it apart from the term genital integrity. Johntex 01:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting here that activist redirects to activism. There's little that can be said at the -ist page that wouldn't also belong at the -ism page.  -Sean Curtin 00:05, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should point out in fairness that I created the original intactivist article. As far as I know that does not disqualify my vote, but I think it should be mentioned..  Since the article is new, I am sure more improvements will be made over time if we let it stand.  Thank you.  Johntex 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I Oppose the merge. The term is notable enough to remain the topic of an independent article.  65.200.8.178 02:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous but seemingly unique names
A user, The Tom, has been changing the names of a number of articles and I am unsure whether or not I agree with his rationale. Mainly, he has been changing the name of political organizations which do not indiciate their jurisdiction in their official title. eg. He has changed the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia).

I am torn here as, to my knowledge, "Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform" is only used in British Columbia, however it could very easily be used elsewhere. So, my question is, should the article be called Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform or Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)? See The Tom's edit history to find other examples of articles he has renamed in a similar fashion.

Also, please not, I do not mean the above as an attack on The Tom, I am just wondering whether this is the right way to go or not -- I am not sure. -- Jord 14:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The changes seem needless to me. Maurreen 15:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Apologies. In the case of the Citizens Assembly, I was clearing the ground for an article on the similarly-titled organization about to be set up in Ontario.   -The Tom 18:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd go even further. Even if the name is ambiguous, if we have only one article that fits that title, that article should sit under that title. For instance, if I write an article about a Joe Bloggs and no-one else has written an article about any other Joe Bloggs, that article should be under "Joe Bloggs". If another article gets written that also belongs under that same title, then some way of disambiguating it should be found. This could be by making "Joe Bloggs" into a disambiguation page, or by making "Joe Bloggs" about one of the (more famous) Joe Bloggses and adding at the top "this article is about Joe Bloggs, the widget-maker, for other people called Joe Bloggs see Joe Bloggs (politician), or Joe Bloggs (actor), or Joe Bloggs (disambiguation)'' or whatever.

To address the specific case in point, if The Tom is about to write about the Ontario Citizens Assemby, fair enough. If not, he should have left it where it is, jguk 00:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's always quite so clear-cut. Especially with personal names, there may be other links to Joe Bloggs which are not the same as the one with the written article. Some judgement is required as to the relative notability of the various Joe Bloggs (if such an assessment is possible). In such a situation, if the Joe Bloggs with a written article is obviously more notable (or even if it is not clear, but it appears unlikely that the other Joe Bloggs will have an article written about them anytime soon), then I'd add a template to the top of the existing article and try to populate Joe Bloggs (disambiguation) with whatever basic information might be available about the others. If the existing Joe Bloggs article is only a stub, or if it is obvious that other Joe Bloggs are likely to be of comparable notability and there is a good chance there there would be an article created about them, then I'd be inclined to move the existing Joe Bloggs article to a disambiguated title and turn the Joe Bloggs page into a disambiguation page. Suppose for example, the existing Joe Bloggs article is a stubby entry about some a not terribly illustrious post-Civil War politician. And I happen to come to the link by clicking on a Joe Bloggs link for a not particularly notable 18th century British politician. And looking at What Links Here might reveal yet another Joe Bloggs, perhaps a 20th century Australian politician of no great significance. In such a case, I'd probably move the existing Joe Bloggs article to something like Joe Bloggs (American politician) and turn Joe Bloggs into a disambiguation page (and also change links in the articles to link to something link Joe Bloggs (British politician) and Joe Bloggs (Australian politician). 02:04, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions (precision) use google to find other things with that name. than make a dab page. This avoids future work. You may have 50 articles linking to Joe Bloggs and nobody knows which Joe Blogg they refer to. It's a mess to fix this later and unecessary. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Insurance companies
Hi all. I am proposing to change the name of the category to "Insurers" and hence Insurance companies of the United Kingdom to Insurers of the United Kingdom, etc.. The reasons are (1) it's shorter; (2) it takes care of non-company insurers, such as partnerships or other structures, e.g., Lloyd's. --JuntungWu 12:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Not a good idea. Insurers of the United Kingdom sounds like those who insure the United Kingdom, not insurers who are in or insure risks in the United Kingdom. Also, apart from Lloyd's all insurers must be in corporate form (usually companies or friendly societies), so I'm not sure what the partnership reference is, jguk 13:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per jguk CalJW 22:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

When the definition of a word is disputed
Sorry if this is addressed somewhere else, I haven't been able to find any guidelines for it. If you're creating a page about a word which can have different definitions, how do you decide which definition to use? For example, "vivisection" means experimenting on animals by cutting them in some dictionaries, but any kind of animal experimentin others. Should the "vivisection" page simply talk about cutting animals, or should it talk about all animal experiments? Should "vivisection" and "animal experiments" be seperate pages, or should they be merged?

 * I think handling differences in definitions depends on the situation, such as how much information Wikipedia has on each definition and how contentious different defintions are. But they should at least generally link to each other.
 * In this case, I think they should be different articles. Maurreen 12:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps it should go by the primary definition listed in Wiktionary, if there is one present. Miroku Sanna 12:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a related question: what if a technical term is used slightly differently by different professions? In materials science, oil and water are the paradigm example of phase (matter) equilibrium, but a solid-state physicist assures me that, despite the stable boundary between these two domains of matter, they are actually the same phase (that is, both are liquid). Should I make a phase (materials science) or phase (engineering) page to cover material on the different usage? Complicating the situation is the fact that in 90% of the definition, we agree, so it would be like writing seperate articles on parallel (euclid) and parallel (projective). Also, I use the term "state of matter" to mean "phase" in the sense he uses it in, but he objects to this due to potential confusion with "thermodynamic state".--Joel 05:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question about preferred article title
I'm going to be starting an article on the Great Lakes Storm of 1913, and wanted to know in what form the title should be. (eg: 1913 Great Lakes Storm, Great Lakes storm of 1913, etc...) It's more often referred to simply as the Great Storm of 1913 (6 times to 1), would that be better? --brian0918  01:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, looking at Category:Weather, it looks like other similar articles are named something like "Great Lakes storm of 1913". older ≠ wiser 02:39, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Country and State Names
There is no stated convention on the naming of states or countries. For example for the second year running there is a edit war despute between people wanting to name Wikipedia titles in the format of:

 * State-Name ( Country-Name, State-type )

and those who wish to use

 * State-Name, Country

Can someone please clarify if there is a preferred Wikipedia format. Also what about the use of brackets, square brackets, angled brackets, etc.?.--Daeron 13:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not aware of an explicit policy on this. But at the state/province level the practice I have seen more often is parenthetical disambiguation. I think the comma-stacked format arose as an EXCEPTION to the general convention of parenthetical disambiguation specifically for U.S. cities and has since become more widespread, but is generally limited to cities/towns, place names, or tertiary political divisions like counties.

 * There are examples of both types, though I believe the first is more common overall: Georgia (U.S. state), Salzburg (state), Luxembourg (province of Belgium), Konolfingen (district), Montana (region), Dobrich (region)
 * Or Córdoba Province, Argentina (although curiously the Córdoba (province) disambiguation page lists the link as Córdoba (Argentinan province)), Bolívar, Colombia
 * Browse Category:Lists of subnational entities for other samples.

 * Personally, my preference is for parenthetical disambiguation for the simple reason that pipe trick makes it just a little bit easier to automatically hide the parenthetical when typing a link, but really either form is just fine as far as I'm concerned. older ≠ wiser 14:18, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you email me about the type of pipe that you're thinking of. I'd suspect either format is equal for filtering needs.
 * I personally think the non-bracket format is more comfortable to read and type.--Daeron

 * See Help:Piped link for info on the Pipe Trick. It simply means that you do not have to re-type the link after the pipe--the software automatically removes the parenthetical portion. older ≠ wiser 12:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * A fix may be to allow the "pipe trick" to work with commas as well? eg.  Launceston, Tasmania becomes Launceston -- Chuq 21:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Naming Conventions" naming convention
I have found it misleading that Wikpedia: pages relating to conventions for the names of pages are entitled "Naming conventions". It would be less ambiguous to call them "Page-naming conventions". The ambiguity arises in the case of proper names. For example, the page Naming conventions (city names) does not make clear that it refers to the conventions for the title of the page describing a city, rather than conventions for referring to the city in the body of other articles. On which note, where are the latter conventions to be found? Joestynes 04:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I agree.
 * 2) I think there's a wikiproject for cities. Maurreen 06:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Popularity measure
"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In a case where a clear majority cannot be seen, what kind of sources should be used? How is one to measure this "majority"? Also, in a case a name that was prevalent is changed "officially", but obviously google hits or other searches return more (old) entries with previous names, what can be done to reduce ambiguity? The case especially became important with the case of the city "Calcutta", which was renamed (in English) to "Kolkata" by the Government of the West Bengal. A fairly heated dicussion is going on at the discussion page. -- Urnonav 06:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous adjectives
There is a new idea at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ambiguous adjectives). If adopted, this would modify Naming conventions (adjectives). -- Toby Bartels 08:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

The [Name of Country] → [Name of Country]
The following discussion was originally from Requested moves and has been brought here for further input.

Proposed moves

 * The Gambia → Gambia
 * The Netherlands → Netherlands
 * The Netherlands (disambiguation) → Netherlands (disambiguation)
 * Category:Elections in Gambia → Category:Elections in Gambia
 * Coat of Arms of Bahamas → Coat of Arms of the Bahamas
 * List of political parties in Gambia → List of political parties in the Gambia
 * Category:Elections in Netherlands Antilles → Category:Elections in the Netherlands Antilles
 * Category:Geography of Solomon Islands → Category:Geography of the Solomon Islands
 * Category:Elections in Bahamas → Category:Elections in the Bahamas
 * List of political parties in Marshall Islands → List of political parties in the Marshall Islands
 * List of hospitals in Philippines → List of hospitals in the Philippines

Discussion from WP:RM
and XXX of/in [Name of Country] → XXX of/in the [Name of Country]

Note: this request is only applicable to names of countries and territories that need the "the" article, such as the Gambia, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Marianas, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom.

There was a debate over the title of the article Netherlands, and the article was moved to The Netherlands. Nevertheless, it has been a general rule that the articles "the" are left out for articles titled "[Name of Country]", but to keep them for articles titled "XXX of the [Name of Country]", except the Gambia (see Talk:The Gambia). This request is for the consistence of titles. — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Relevant conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beining of name). — Instantnood 03:53 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

 * As I stated on RM's talk page, I'm growing greatly concerned with the recent precedent of recommending large blocks of pages. In order to keep the moves controllable and accountable, and to give the contributors a scale of how comprehensive this requested move is, would you kindly provide a list of how many (and which) pages will be affected by this move?  —ExplorerCDT 02:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that these kind of issues should not be discussed here, but on naming policy talk pages. If there is a consensus there, someone should move them without bringing them up here. john k 03:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions are there with little dispute. This request can be removed once the articles are moved according to the relevant policies. — Instantnood 04:47 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, conventions are merely guidelines. See Ignore all rules. —ExplorerCDT 05:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (to ExplorerCDT) The Gambia and The Netherlands to Gambia and Netherlands. There could be more. And subcategories of categories cannot be shown during system recovery of Wikipedia. — Instantnood 03:58 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like a list of ALL the articles you want to move, and if a block is consistent, then vote on it as one unit, otherwise it may be necessary to vote on certain pages, individually, case-by-case. Not every article you could propose or apply this to has a cookie cutter solution. I do not want just a general XXX of the Netherlands, I want a list.  I wager the administrators who would end up executing such a move would like to know where they're going rather than have to hunt-and-peck for articles.  Administrators aren't slaves to your request. It's your request...you do the legwork. What articles SPECIFICALLY do you want to change? —ExplorerCDT 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The Gambia and The Netherlands are the only pages identified. Categories are now disabled temporarily for server recovery. — Instantnood 06:30 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)
 * The server is now recovered. Besides The Gambia and The Netherlands, other pages include The Netherlands (disambiguation), Category:Elections in Gambia, Coat of Arms of Bahamas, List of political parties in Gambia, Category:Elections in Netherlands Antilles, Category:Geography of Solomon Islands, Category:Elections in Bahamas, List of political parties in Marshall Islands and List of hospitals in Philippines. — Instantnood 10:32 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that in this kind of 'in' pages, the would be included: Elections in the Netherlands, see for my general comment below, were I am in favour of the move. Gangulf 13:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So far, Oppose as it relates to "The Netherlands" because it isn't just one "netherland" if you know the history of the country (that's akin to saying you'd move the article on the Scottish Highlands to Scottish Highland just because you think it's just northern Scotland and because Wikipedia prefers the singular). As to "The Gambia" I know I've only known the name "Gambia" to be inextricably connected with its definite article, but I'll have to check into questions of usage before I walk away from being Neutral - I do know that we don't generally refer to Sudan and Congo anymore under the colonialist "The Sudan" and "The Congo." —ExplorerCDT 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. If one looks in a traditiona encyclopedia, one would find both countries under Netherlands and under Gambia. There is no Netherland, I agree, but including 'The' is not necesary. One doesn't move the article Scottish Highlands to The Scottish Highlands. Furthermore, I was surprised that some moved Netherlands to The Netherlands during the discussion on that move with at the same removing the discussion from this page. Gangulf 10:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree. The Scottish Highlands example is quite right. Just because we put "the" in front of a name for grammatical reasons doesn't mean that it forms an integral part of the name that has to go in an article title. If we have Netherlands at The Netherlands we ought to move United States to The United States. That would be ridiculous in both cases. In article and category titles like "History of ..." then "the" should clearly be included. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Since United States is where the U.S. article is, the appropriate names are Gambia and Netherlands. —Lowellian (talk) 01:09, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Jonathunder 01:12, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * Support, albeit not agreeing to using "the" at all in some cases (Ukraine, Sudan, etc.) zoney ♣ talk 20:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present. Please confirm that you have placed the required notice on the talk pages of all the articles you contemplate moving, that there has been ample (weeks) time for discussion and that there is no existing controversy for any of them which has not yet been resolved in your favor on the talk pages concerned. Jamesday 09:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC).

User:Zondor/Naming conventions, now moved to template:Naming conventions (Zondor's proposal), used as template (see right), removed from guideline page.
 * Please provide a list of pages to be moved. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't this need a little more discussion, prior to implementation? If it were better in line with usability (for instance, not so confusing about the several "people" NC guidelines, etc...), this might even be a good idea, but of course not on a user talk page, a bit shorter, etc...

--Francis Schonken 08:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's too bulky to be practical. This is exactly what categories are for. Radiant_ >|< 14:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines or policy?
Are naming conventions guidlines or policy? Since the main page has a policy tag, some people argue that the individual conventions, as an extension of this page, are also policy, whilst other people believe they are guidelines. Given User:Zondor's recent actions, some conventions need tagging, but I am unsure which way to tag them. Any thoughts? Hiding talk 11:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd say:
 * naming conventions: policy, categorised in category:wikipedia official policy
 * All other pages in category:wikipedia naming conventions: naming conventions guidelines. Note that the category of wikipedia naming conventions is a subcategory of category:wikipedia guidelines - I think that categorisation scheme is OK. Maybe Naming conventions (categories) could also be policy (as it is now): it is the central place for naming conventions regarding the "category:" namespace, as far as I'm concerned that justifies it to be policy too.
 * Note that presently the first sentence of naming conventions reads: "Naming conventions is a list of guidelines on how to appropriately create and name pages." - so that also supports the pages on that list to be guidelines, while the list itself can be policy as far as I'm concerned.
 * That is not an exceptional approach: for instance: Neutral point of view is policy, a number of pages giving the finer details on how to implement that policy are marked as guideline or essay and/or included in other categories (NPOV tutorial; POV; etc...).
 * Any toughts about that approach? --Francis Schonken 12:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me, as long as it is understood that conventions on the main page are also guidelines, rather than policy. Hiding talk 12:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. The fact that we have NCs is policy; the individual NCs are guidelines (mostly because they tend to have exceptions). Radiant_ >|< 14:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive
Any objections to archiving this talk page? It's getting far too long. Radiant_ >|< 14:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Archiving everything older than 1st of November to /Archive 5. Give me a minute. --Francis Schonken 15:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 5