Wikipedia talk:Article titles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

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

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)

Türkiye and Naoero

There are two new names of countries that are used officially by English speakers, and they are on the title, because they used to be “Turkey” and “Nauru”. Look, just accept that some countries have exceptions for exonyms, and it’s like calling Myanmar “Burma” and Mexico “Mayheek”. It’s worse because most people of Naoero are English speakers, and you don’t hear them say “This is Nauru.” They say the other expected word, Naoero. So point at a gun if people deadname those two nations, ok? Erpagitheeditor (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You say "Look, just accept ..." as though that should settle the matter, but if I say right back at you "Look, just accept that some exonyms continue to thrive and Wikipedia reflects that", does that settle the matter?
"Mayheek"? Who says or writes "Mayheek"? Largoplazo (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
I know but as the World Map changes people’s vocabulary changes too, Siamese used to refer to Thai people now it’s a cat breed, and let the people get used to it, ok? Erpagitheeditor (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't lead people to "get used to it", it waits until people "get used to it". Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Can you tell me an example then? Erpagitheeditor (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
An example of what? Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
An example of the people soon getting used to it. Erpagitheeditor (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this is the kind of example you're asking about, but here are some comparable cases. Gqeberha was created under its then-current name of Port Elizabeth. The city was renamed to Gqeberha in February 2021, but the article wasn't moved until October 2022. X (social network) was created as Twitter, and the site was renamed to X in 2023, but the article didn't follow suit until 2026. The common thread is: Wikipedia follows what other reliable sources are already doing, it doesn't take the lead on trying to popularize name changes. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
You know maybe they’ll be Gqeberhas. Erpagitheeditor (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
For example, English-speaking people have never got used to calling that Central European country “Deutschland”. It’s “Germany”. Will English speakers stick to “Turkey”, or switch to “Türkiye”? We wait and see. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
It was presumably found to be the case by editors who discussed the moves Swaziland → Eswatini, East Timor → Timor-Leste, and Kiev → Kyiv. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
I’ll probably check in a year. Erpagitheeditor (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Foo, Republic of Tatarstan

Given that Tatarstan is the main article and Republic of Tatarstan redirects to it, shouldn't all article titles with Foo, Republic of Tatarstan be shortened to just Foo, Tatarstan per WP:TITLECON + WP:CONCISE? Some examples:

This probably does not apply to State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan and Prime Minister of the Republic of Tatarstan because those are official names, but it does also apply to Flag of Tatarstan, State Anthem of Tatarstan, History of Tatarstan and so on. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

PS: This applies to a few article titles already:
Evidently, the Republic of part is redundant. NLeeuw (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Using the long form for these titles seems to be the norm for most of Russia's republics, even when the republic's article is known by the short form; we have Khakassia vs. Mayna, Republic of Khakassia, we have Buryatia vs. Kamensk, Republic of Buryatia, and similar cases also exist for Adygea and Dagestan. Speaking for myself, it seems perfectly sensible to shorten these titles where the republic's main article does the same—but since the practice seems pretty widespread, it's probably worth going through a full RM in case there are counterarguments I haven't thought of. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I was considering an RM, but surely not for all pages separately? Or would it suffice to pick just one, and if it is closed as Move, use that as a precedent for the rest? NLeeuw (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
My recommendation would be to start with a group RM for a subset of the relevant pages—perhaps all affected articles within a given republic. (See WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves if you want instructions on how to carry that out.) If you're looking to establish a precedent, I'd also be upfront about it—I'd suggest explicitly stating your plans in the nomination statement, and dropping notifications to some relevant WikiProjects (perhaps WP:WikiProject Geography and WP:WikiProject Russia) to make sure people who might have opinions have the greatest amount of opportunity to be aware of the discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI