Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Importance of "Concision" versus other guidelines

I've participated in a few RM discussions, but not a ton. I've found that people insist on WP: CONCISE concerns over the other four stated pillars of good article titles. It seems the average RM discussion hinges first on whether the proposed article title is shorter and then whether it butts up against the other guidelines. It seems many people will (without malice ofc) only comment Support or Oppose per WP: CONCISE and leave the rest of the guidelines to the side. It is certainly valuable to have shorter names. But a shorter name that is less natural or causes confusion is a detriment to the user, even it saves character space.

I was wondering if anyone would support an addendum basically affirming that concision is only one part of the guidelines and that shorter is not an automatic improvement (e.g. Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln is not inferior to "Walt Whitman on Abraham Lincoln" or Transport during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics is not better as "2024 Olympic and Paralympic Transport," even if both could be parsed properly). Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRITERIA states that concision is one of the five things we strive for, and that article titles are determined by consensus. It also states that "it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." That sums it up pretty well, and I see no reason to change that or add any further explanation. 162 etc. (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, Consistency is primarily a list of exceptions and Concision is primarily a list of exemplars. Even if it states the principle earlier, someone who is linked to just the Concision subsection may think that there is no real limit except for a stated naming convention.

Idt it would hurt things to add a third example like one of the above where shortening is not necessarily an improvement. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this something you can just note during the discussion? The same thing arises when people in other sorts of discussion focus on exactly one aspect of WP:FORRED or WP:COMMONNAME, and others draw their attention to the fact that multiple factors are given by the guideline that need to be weighed. Largoplazo (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• My experience is a bit different… I find that both Recognizability (ie COMMONNAME) and Consistency usually outweigh Concision… but not by much. A lot may depend on the topic area you are primarily editing in. As others have said, we look at all five of the goals when determining the best title - and one is not “more important” than the others. Ideally all five are met. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Murder(s)" in titles in regard to unsolved murders

Hi y'all, is there a consensus about whether the word "murder" or "murders" can be used in an article title when, well, a murder is unsolved? I know what the flow chart says at WP:DEATHS, but a lot of the articles in Category:Unsolved murders (not to mention the name of the category) use the "murder"/"murders" terminology. There is an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Lane Bryant shooting#Requested move 8 May 2026 where this is relevant. I feel that if in these unsolved murders a suspect or suspects was suddenly located, the relevant pages could be quickly moved to a title that removes "murder" or "murders" from the title. In the Lane Bryant article it is known that murders took place, but there are no known suspects. Raskuly 🐰 00:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Using "the" in parentheses when disambiguating titles

Hello, all. I came across the article Reach for the Sky (The Allman Brothers Band album) and immediately thought to rename the article so that the "The" in parentheses is lowercase. But then I noticed Revolver (Beatles album) omits "the" entirely. So should it be Reach for the Sky (the Allman Brothers Band album) or Reach for the Sky (Allman Brothers Band album)? Mbinebri (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a recent local consensus here at WP:ALBUMS to omit "The". I note that this was not discussed at WT:AT, is not a Wikipedia naming convention or guideline, and that I personally disagree with it. Such cases should be discussed at WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that, generally, omitting "the" is probably preferable for bands whose name is a plural noun (the Beatles, the Doors, etc) or otherwise explicitly describes a group (the Dave Clark Five, etc), but that retaining "the" adds important clarity when the band name doesn't fit that pattern (The Who, The The, The Damned, etc). Based on that pattern, my personal leaning would be to omit "the" for your specific example. However, given that the topic does seem likely to be somewhat controversial, I agree with 162 that holding a full RM is probably the best way to achieve a solid consensus here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether a band name is being used as a noun or an adjective. We'd write "Revolver is an album by the Beatles", but "Revolver is a Beatles album", never "Revolver is a The Beatles album". Within a parenthetical disambiguator, the band name will usually modify "album" when "album" alone would be incomplete. If we didn't need the band name, we would never use "(the album)" as a disambiguator. Of course, there will always be exceptions like Endless Wire (The Who album). So now the question is, When used adjectivally, is "[The] Allman Brothers Band" more like "Beatles" or more like "The Who"? Station1 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Either way they should go through WP:RM discussions. While a local consensus at the wiki project may have determined a preference for removing "The", thr proof of the pudding is in the eating. Currently renaming along these lines would be regarded as controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, especially in individual cases like this where reasonable arguments can be made for either title. Station1 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone! I started a discussion for the requested move, if anyone wants to participate. Mbinebri (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Article Naming and using commonly recognizable names

I'm having trouble interpreting WP:UCRN in context of Talk:Steam Controller (1st generation) § Requested move to Steam Controller (2015).

Specifically I would like opinions on the following

• using sources' titles/WP:HEADLINES for parenthetical disambiguation and article naming

i.e. titles that clarify the context by using parenthetical disambiguation, but no longer use it in the body

• using WP:VENDOR and WP:SELFSOURCE in article naming context
• using WP:USERGENERATED content in support of choosing what is "commonly recognizable"

originally asked on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tracerneo (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Advertising signs: upper or lower case?

We've got a bunch of articles with titles "Xxx sign" or "Xxx Sign" in Category:Billboards and Category:Advertising structures, split about 50-50 on whether "sign" is capitalized or not. I'm inclined to declare that these are all proper names, should thus be "Sign" (capitalized), and rename all those that aren't, with the exception of John 3:7 (sign). Does this seem reasonable? RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't dug deeply into each one, but, if anything, it looks to me like most of these are not proper names and "sign" should be lower cased. These probably need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Station1 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at a few that each have several references, and the sources seem generally consistent within a specific example but inconsistent among examples. As examples of this diversity:

• Bekins Storage Co. roof sign has two NPS refs, both of which use that exact phrase and title-case for it (contrary to our article's title and lead), suggesting this is the proper name of this thing.
• Paddy Power Cleeve Hill Sign (which is written "Paddy Power Cleeve Hill sign" in its lead) has two refs, neither of which calls it by this specific name, suggesting it's a WP descriptive title (and therefore would be sentence-case) rather than a proper name of this thing.
• Sharpies Golf House Sign has several refs, which seem consistent with lower-case "sign" (and sometimes only call it "Sharpies Golf sign"), suggesting this is a descriptive title rather than a proper name.

I think this points to needing a case-by-case approach. DMacks (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)