Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)/Archive 01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

lots of talk from elsewhere

Oliver P. asked: "How do we disambiguate regular events by year? With a comma, a colon, parentheses, or with "flowing prose"? Does this also depend on context?"

So have we reached a consensus on US presidential election of 2000? Susan Mason

Absolutely not. It is patently absurd to change all the pages because you don't like using a comma. This issue should be discussed on the w-list like all major changes of convention. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:14 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)
There's currently no convention on the use of commas versus "of" to distinguish years, so this wouldn't be a change of convention. Martin
It is the standard way used to refer to all US elections. As other pages show in edit wars, of is not universally accepted with regular demands to change it to something else. The comma is 100% neutral. Of will produce endless wars over titles (as it already has done) with others demanding in, during, etc. The title form used now produces no problems over alternatives. Of will open up the floodgates to complaints over titles using it, as it already has done, as well as involved pointless work renaming an entire series of titles that with the exception of Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason, were judged so successful that everyone doing pages on US elections used them. Its widespread use therefore is a de facto convention. A change would involve everyone else having to change their naming style because Lir is unhappy. (Again!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:03 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, it is the standard way to refer to US elections. It's not a "de facto convention", however, because the majority of similar articles, like the 2000 Summer Olympics, do not use a comma. Let's try to look at the big picture here.
Note that I personally prefer 2000 US presidential election, which has no "of" word to cause disputes. And I agree with you that "of" would be a poor solution, for all the reasons you've cited. Martin

Interesting option. The one problem I would have with the format you suggest is that it breaks what is sometimes called the What? When? rule. It is a rule often used by sub-editors in newspapers, graphic layout people, etc. Basically you ask the question: 'what is the central fact being discussed? Is it the year 2000? A presidential election? In the other example above, the year 2000 or the Summer Olympics? Whichever is the key definitionary part of the title comes first (the 'what?') with the secondary information (in this case the 'when?') afterwards. That is only inverted where for want of space (you are laying out a page and you have three columns to take a headline, for example) in which case you go for the shortest (eg. 2000 Summer Olympics). Most election programmes on TV for example, define themselves by being Election 1998 (certainly in Europe and english speaking countries outside the US and I presume there too!) following the What? When? rule. You furthermore use a separating comma rather than another word because in different contexts on, in, against, etc can all

  • make the sentence too long in title form
  • be disputed as to meaning, with some people attaching particularly bias in a particular context (eg. War against Iraq versus War on Iraq versus War in Iraq versus War with Iraq.)

The What? Comma When? rule is straightforward, neutral and follows an unambiguous format that is universally applicable. eg.,

  • Irish General election, 2002
  • Irish General election, 1982 (Feb)
  • Irish General election, 1982 (Nov)
  • French Presidential election, 2000
  • US Presidential election, 1900
  • US Presidential election, 2000
  • Summer Olympics, 1948
  • Summer Olympics, 1968
  • Summer Olympics, 1972

Using it in that format keeps the important definitionary fact first and so most prominent in the title - the fact it is about a general election/presidential election/summer olympics. The When?What? format would work if the year, not what happened, was the definitionary point, as in

  • 2000 in sport
  • 2000 in politics
  • 2000 on wikipedia,

etc. But I certainly would much prefer your alternative to Susan's utterly workable one. If we used that, given the rows that regularly take place over on/in/during etc, we'd have lists cropping up as

  • Presidential election of 2000
  • Presidential election in 1996
  • Presidential election in 1992
  • Presidential election of 1988
  • Presidential election in 1984

with different people using their preferred version, followed by 'x' renaming them all to follow a pattern, y saying - 'no. I disagree with 'in'. In should be 'of', with 'z' saying 'why not 'during' It did take place during the year after all? It would be a recipe for endless going around in circles with every month someone coming on to wiki (or rejoining), taking one look and saying 'no! That should be 'in' not 'of' and we'd end up with yet another war.

My view is simple - What? comma When? But we should avoid of/in/during . . . like the plague because they would be a recipe for endless going around in circles with edit wars, naming wars, convention debates, etc. When? What? by avoiding those damned words gets my number 2. STÓD/ÉÍRE 12:37 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

You've certainly convinced me that What? comma When? is just as good as When? What? for titles. I'd be happy to accept either convention - though I do think we should pick one and make it uniform - because that will aid people in linking. Martin
  • Susan Mason proposed that the page should be at US presidential election of 2000 for ease of incorporation into prose without the use of pipes.
  • STÓD/ÉÍRE argued against this, saying that 'Election 2000' 'Election in 2000' or 'Election, 2000' make more sense stylistically as titles or headlines, regardless of what one says in prose. "Turning it to one complete sentence would be cumbersome and would require all past names be changed."
  • Oliver agreed generally with Susan, saying that her version was more "aesthetically pleasing", although he would prefer "U.S." to "US".
  • The Cunctator once suggested that "(for example) 2000 U.S. presidential election may be a better style than U.S. presidential election, 2000 since the first is more natural in an in-text reference. Though it really doesn't matter much with use of redirects."
  • RobLa liked The Cunctator's title, and didn't disapprove of a bulk renaming, but thought we should agree to a convention on a more appropriate page.

STÓD/ÉÍRE typed the following text at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, but the page was too full (it needs to be archived):-

There are three reasons why US presidential election, 2000 is the best option.

  1. We are only dealing with the issue of the title, not the form of words used in the article text. As an article title, it is classic headline material, more direct' and shorter (hence its use in newspaper headlines, on academic article titles, graphics packages on news programmes, etc). It simply involves the two variable broken up by a comma, year and the what happened that year. It is a format that can be easily followed elsewhere, eg,' Irish presidential election, 2004 ' ' British general election, 2002 ' Wiki election about nothing in particular, 2009 '. Other than the capitals and US v U.S. debate, there isn't much room for mistake. Its format is simple and unmistakable; {title}, {year}.
  2. Using 'of' is regularly a problem on Wiki. Someone will use it. Someone else will insist it sounds better using 'in'. Others will mix up which one to use. We'll have rows, arguments, redirects. Votes over 'on' versus 'of' (with someone probably saying 'why not 'US presidential election during 2002'! Isn't that more technically accurate?) A comma is the safest and most neutral term.
  3. We have a long list of articles on elections, using the comma. What is the point of going to all the work, all the renaming, to replace a comma? And having introduced one word, 'of', we are only going to have the same dispute over whether 'of' is more or less grammatically correct that 'in', etc.

As this is constantly being repeated over and over again, let me make this clear (even to Susan Mason!). I am not saying you have to say US presidential election, 2004 in an article. But we all have enough skill to be able to link a redirect to a perfectly simple name. It doesn't matter if you don't speak that way. It simply matters whether, as a headline it works. Most people who have ever laid out a magazine would pick , 2004 over of 2004 for a headline because it looks shorter, snappier and more direct on the page, and because it gives a workable easy-to-follow template. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:53 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Newsweek. With the article as is, you either have to use the title in the text, or else use redirects. As this is a big historical event, we should try to have the title be something which people will not have to redirect to. Susan Mason

No it is an encyclopædia, Susan, which means using the best way not the way suits one or two individuals. Of is a nightmare word on wiki. Pages upon pages that use it have seen wars over whether it should be of, in, during, against, etc. See UN Security Council and the Proposed Iraq War, formerly called [[UN Security Council and the War ''in'' Iraq]]/[[UN Security Council and the War ''against'' Iraq]]. It makes absolutely no sense to remove a comma which is absolutely neutral with a word that is regularly disputed in article titles. In its current form, the title can be used for elections worldwide. Introduce of and you will have endless squabbles. This is a loony suggestion. STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:03 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
Tada! I've finally got round to making a redirect at US presidential election of 2000, so you can link to that now. I still think we need some discussion at the naming conventions page, but first it needs to be archived. Any ideas on how to do that? -- Oliver P. 05:34 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

What about events that span multiple years, eg tax years, football seasons, etc? Martin

Ah, I was wondering what had happened to this page. People seem to have stopped discussing it. Shall we open the vote at the bottom of the page now? As for the multiple year thing, how about...
;) By the way, sorry I haven't replied to your reply to my "essay" on signature removal. I'm still thinking about it. :) -- Oliver P. 19:51 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Sure, let's open the vote. :) Martin


Regarding options below:

proposition enables clarification of subtle differences in meaning

Wha...? Could you subtly clarify what this means? ;-) Martin

Ah, okay, it isn't very clear, is it? Firstly, I meant "preposition". :) Secondly, I meant much the same as STÓD/ÉÍRE did above, when he said that "of", "in", and so on carry slightly different connotations. Except that I think this could be helpful rather than merely a source of conflict! For example, "Summer Olympics of 2000" suggests to me that the article is about one specific Summer Olympics event which was allotted to the year 2000. "Summer Olympics in 2000" suggests to me that the article is about Summer Olympics-related goings-on which occurred in that year, and that there could be more than one event involved. But the words could have different connotations for different people, so I don't know how much information would really be contained in such prepositions, to be honest. -- Oliver P. 16:42 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Further discussion

Am I the only one that finds it humorous that, in this discussion of dates, there is no mention of what year the voting ends? (Yes, I know the comments tell the year; I just have an odd sense of humor... :-) Amillar 23:22 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

If one intended to mean 2000 Summer Olympics (but not the Summer Olympics at AD 2000), please type the number in letters, i.e two thousand Summer Olympics -- User:kt2 22:39 May 13, 2003

Option added. --Menchi 22:52 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
Menchi, I'm sure that's not what kt2 meant. I think the suggestion is to write the number in words if you don't mean the year. And it sounds quite sensible to me. -- Oliver P. 23:00 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
In other words, five musketeers would refer to five people who are all musketeers, whereas 5 musketeers would refer to the musketeers in the year 5... Martin
I see! :-) Option deleted. --Menchi 23:04 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone else vote in this, or is it intended just for the quorate of you five? :-) James D. Forrester 23:39 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

No, no, the more the merrier. :) -- Oliver P. 00:09 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
I'm suddenly feeling like a puppet-master, what with everyone voting for the item in the top, and my sudden realisation that having one of the options in blue might be viewed as implicit endorsement. So I've changed the order and redirected the links - before any comparisons can be made with Jeb Bush! Martin

The main page is inaccurate in claiming that UK elections place the year first. That was all changed some while back. They now take the form [[country type of election, year]] as to election references for other countries. ÉÍREman 01:52 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

was there any discussion of the pros and cons of this that could be usefully stitched in here? Martin

How broad is the result of this vote to be taken? I personally would like to vote for 2000 Summer Olympics, but I see no reason to change the name of a page like Battle of Tannenberg (1914). Would it be changed under these proposals? Andre Engels 14:08 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I'm assuming we are talking about "planned events" rather than the date of "one offs". -- SGBailey 14:39 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I was including things like battles, in my own mind at least, but I confess that nobody specifically said either way... But it wouldn't mean we have to immediately go out and change every single article - just slowly, in the long term, move towards it, and try to start new articles with the new format. Is there a particular reason why 1914 Battle of Tannenberg would be inferior? Martin

In my view, most definitely. The first word or words seen by the viewer should be the main ones, not the subsidary ones. In the Battle of Tannenburg, the key fact is. . . well the Battle of Tannenberg. That is what the article is about. The date is of secondary qualifying importance (1914 on its own means nothing, it is the words Battle of Tannenberg that tell what the article is about). Similarly I think the 2000 Summer Olympics is absurd. In that format, we make it look like the key word we are describing is 2000. In fact we are discussing the Summer Olympics. The year is the qualifying information for which summer olympics. If we were discussing things that happened in the year 2000, then it would make logical sense for it to be the first word. But we are not. In that article we are talking about the Summer Olympics, with 2000 simply the qualifier. Ditto the UK general election, 2002. That is in the format widely used, the' where, what, when' format. We aren't discussing the year 2002. We are discussing a UK general election, with 2002 simply defining which election. A simple rule of thumb is break up the title, assemble it using individual parts and find which one is the vital bit that when left out renders the article title meaningless. That then goes up front to let the reader know the central issue. So

  • US presidential election, 1948
    • 1948? If that was left, would the article title still be usable? Yes, you have to go in to it to find out which presidential election, but the fact that it is about a US presidential election is still clear.
    • US presidential election? Without those words the article is 100% meaningless. All you would be left with is 1948, which could be about absolutely any topic linked with 1948, from papal canonisations in 1948 to film pornography in 1948, favourite tobacco use in 1948 to the list of John F. Kennedy's sexual conquests in 1948. Or the US presidential election of that year. You need the words US presidential election to find the topic, so it would be put up front. The year qualifies the information, so it is put in last.

Because it is taken as the clearest, it is regularly used by caption writers who tend to only use the format starting with year if (a) they are using no more than 2 words (eg, 2000 election, 2000 olympics (b) they are deliberately stressing the year. (ie, in year 'x' this happened, in year 'y' that happened.) But when typesetting a caption where a long name is used or where the year is not the central issue, the year is put to the end with the key words given priority first, to enable the reader instantly to know the topic of the caption, rather than have to read it to the end to find out. (That might seen a small point, but if you are reading down the 100+ 'recent changes' list, you should be able to spot the key word (US presidential election, Summer Olympics, Irish general election, etc) on the list, then read on for the qualifier. Putting it first makes that easier. Plonking the year first means you may have to read each full line starting with the year to find the right one; 2000 in TV, 2000 in film/movie, 2000 in horse racing, 2000 US presidential election. That is unfair to the reader and bad captioning. From what I can see, the [[year, key information]] when used as it would be in a long list of lines with many many topics that already use date first, would be confusing, impracticable and illogical. Jtdirl


I thought we were just talking about regular events which happen in a sequence. 1914 Battle of Tannenberg sounds to me as if there was a sequence of them, with maybe one happening per year! It sounds vaguely comical to me, to be honest. Oh, and Jtdirl, I like your arguments that years are better at the end because (a) the reader wants to know the topic first, the year being only a disambiguating qualifier, and (b) it would mess up alphabetised lists. However, you could have said that in two sentences. ;) I may consider changing my vote. -- Oliver P. 17:03 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the intro to Battle of Tannenberg (1914) used to say, only yesterday, "The 1914 Battle of Tannenberg was a...", and that phrase is more popular in a google search. But these are details that can be sorted out afterwards, imo. Martin
One thing I have learned on wiki is the uselessness of google searches. There are facts which for various reasons I know (in one case because I witnessed the event in question in person) which google searches throw up the complete wrong information on. In other areas on wiki I have checked facts at source or in primary documents; tens of thousands of google searches say the Prince of Wales' surname is Windsor, for example, but Buckingham Palace confirmed that it is actually Mountbatten-Windsor, something which throws up only a few hundred references. It is wrong about Gladstone, wrong in many many of its references to Ireland, etc. So I have learned to take google searches not with a pinch of salt but with a bucket.
In terms of the opening line, that would not be used by a professionally edited document. It would only be used if there had also been a Battle of Tannenberg in another year and so one required to clarify which battle one is talking about. In a professioned edit historical text, it would be written as simply "The Battle of Tannenberg, which occured in 1914, was a . . . " (As a writer who has has his text added, I have learned to know exactly what an editor would or would not do, and what is judged correct and incorrect in editing style. A colloquially written might use that form, but a major text would not. ÉÍREman 21:16 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
See Battle of Tannenberg - there was indeed another Battle of Tannenberg in another year. Don't be too hasty to assume my incorrectness :) Martin 23:22 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
Apologies, Martin. In that case then the year usage was correct. I was only on-line for a moment so I did not have a chance to check. BTW, on a totally unrelated matter, great work moving the troll contributions back to their own pages. ÉÍREman 00:01 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about the "1948 US presidential election" example further, there is a consitent direction of increasing relevance. The main point about it is that it is an election; the secondary point is that it is of a president; the third point is that the president in question is that of the US; and the least important point is that it happened in 1948. In fact, this is a general feature of the English language - qualifiers (adjectives and so on) usually go before the nouns that they qualify. So we call a sitcom from the UK a "British sitcom", and end up with an article at [[British sitcom]] instead of [[sitcom, UK]], and so on. There is an inconsitency in the way this is done in the Wikipedia, admittedly, but where we do disambiguate things at the end, we almost always do so in parentheses: "(movie)", "(UK)", and so on. Okay, maybe that wouldn't be appropriate in this case. But to take your idea to its logical conclusion, we'd have to end up with [[Election, Presidential, US, 1948]], or something like that. ;) -- Oliver P. 17:24 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

A suggested arrangement

Yes if one was applying index rules. In a title however, where it will appear as part of a long long list, we should put the key defining words first, and the qualifying information (year, movie/film etc) afterwards. Actually what we could do is facilitate the creation of number of lists, with the main text in the form [[county type of election, year]] and and redirects as [[year, country type of election]], allowing the compilation of lists by year (covering all worldwide elections in a particular year), by state and perhaps even by election type. But the main page should be written as country type of election, year. ÉÍREman 21:16 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Options

Note that all these options will require (eventually) name changes to a bunch of articles, simply because currently there is no status quo. But there'll be no rush - articles can be moved over at a sedate pace...

Please vote in the above block by putting your name next to either "for" or "against" for each of the four options. Voting started on May 13, and will close June 13. The option with the most votes on the 13th is likely to become the convention (though wikipedia is not a democracy... ;-). Martin 21:59 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

With a week to go before polls close, 2000 Summer Olympics is leading the running, with eight votes in favour, and four against. Summer Olympics of 2000 has four votes in favour, four against. Summer Olympics, 2000 is a bit better, with five votes in favour, and four against. Last is Summer Olympics (2000), with only two votes in favour, and as many as six against. Over to Carol for some reactions to these hot new results... Martin 20:10 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I suggest an extension of the polls... not everyone even knew this vote was taking place... --Dante Alighieri 02:37 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
People can carry on voting if they like - but I'm going to update the conventions page based on the results now :) Martin

Martin, if people ask you to hold on then it is hardly in the spirit of wiki to ignore them and go ahead anyway. It isn't your call if people want more time. The results show that there is no overwhelming consensus on the issue for you to act. FearÉIREANN 09:44 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And my update to the page reflects that, making a twin recommendation :) Martin 09:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok -- Late to the game, but here are my votes -- there are actuially two:

  • If, in other English-speaking countries, people put the year before the season and olympics, then "2000 Summer Olympics" -- Otherwise, "Olympic Games, Summer 2000"
  • For everything else (because the Olympics are in US English treated as above, but again, we bow to the whole of English-speakers) The general followed by the specific. That is, "US Presidential Election, 2000" -- although I personally like the date separated by a dash or parentheses. JHK 16:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

--> Discussion re-opened below...

Results so far:

  • Option 1: Summer Olympics of 2000 - for 35.71% against 64.29%
  • Option 2: Summer Olympics, 2000 --- for 57.14% against 42.86%
  • Option 3: Summer Olympics (2000) -- for 28.57% against 71.43%
  • Option 4: 2000 Summer Olympics ---- for 52.94% against 47.06%

Numbers vs. years

Would it be better to move the years to "xxxx AD" instead of just the number, and move the actual number to the numerical name? For example, move 101 to 101 AD, then move One hundred one to 101. This seems simpler to me, and right now it seems strange to have "For the number 101, see one hundred and one," at the bottom of 101. Evil saltine 22:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very intuitive. How many people do you think will link 2004 AD when they mean the year instead of 2004 the number. Very confusing and very unnecessary in my opinion. Dori | Talk 22:46, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. It just seems strange to me to have the actual numbers relegated to Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, etc. Evil saltine 22:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe a better solution would be to put the numbers at 1 (number), 2 (number), etc... and leave the wordings (one hundred, etc.) as redirects; of course this isn't much different than the way it is now.. ehh oh well. Evil saltine 22:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I like the idea of xxxx AD, but that would probably be extremely confusing. I think "for the number 101 see" should be at the top however. Greenmountainboy 00:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Isn't convention to use CE and BCE anyway? Dysprosia 02:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I dont think so! Most people use AD so we should too. Greenmountainboy 03:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
CE and BCE are NPOV, while BC and AD aren't. I prefer CE/BCE. Optim 06:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
CE/BCE express the point of view that identifying the era's start as the birth of Christ is somehow bad form; BC/AD express the point of view that it's ok to admit that the Gregorian Calendar is based on a Christian event. Neither is a neutral point of view. -- VerbalHerbal 06:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In the same way that not using terms like "civilised world" for the west is POV in that it assumes a point of view that it is wrong to classify non-western civilisations as uncivilised. This is a fallacy of definition the normal use of POV means avoiding a term that applies to a specific point of view. To extend the definition to say that POV includes a decision that biases should not be given is fallacious. -- Chris Q 12:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, AD means 'Our Lord' and some people will find it totally unacceptable. While CE means Common Era and has nothing inside it. ilya 17:37, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For numbers 1-100, it's possible that they are linked more often than the years. For the 1500-2003, it's definitely more convenient to link them as dates, e.g. 19 December 2003. It might be easier to read if the numbers were at Number 101 Number 102 or 101 (number) 102 (number), rather than [[one hundred one]] [[one hundred two]]. BTW I suggested an addition for the link to numbers at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Years. -- User:Docu

Please don't move the years! All the ones I checked had at least 500 links to them. It would be a nightmare to try and fix them. :) Angela. 08:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Renaming the year entries is not a trivial exercise, and any change would need to be carefully justified. My feeling is that the current standard is quaint, by which I mean not entirely logical but workable and strangely appealing. So IMO the years should be kept as is and other standards adopted for other numbers, as at present. I'm not too worried about these other standards, but others in WikiProject Mathematics might be keen to contribute ideas. Andrewa 11:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think as long as someone adds reference to the number pages to all those years which have a corresponding number page, we should be all right. I haven't checked, but do all the first century years have links to their number pages? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 21:25, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone here?

Has the poll result decided anything about the conventions? I have still been reading articles of all four formats of numbered titles. 大将军, 都督中外诸军事 (talk) 01:34, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Commas in article titles (originally at the village pump)

I've noticed a sudden rash (well, a few pages I have on my watchlist) suddenly being moved from their current page name to the same name with an added comma. Example: European Parliament election 2004 has been moved to European Parliament election, 2004. I'm not sure this helps (actually, I'm sure of the reverse) as if someone enters an address directly they are more likely to enter it without the comma. Comments anyone? --VampWillow 23:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like an attempt to be consistent with the UK general and US presidential election naming conventions. There seems to be about a million and one sensible ways of naming a particular election. I am not sure if the reason for picking that one was any better than "Pick one, and make appropriate redirects". (Redirects take care of your last concern, btw). Pcb21| Pete 00:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I really dislike the election title format with the comma. Someone seems to have started using it for American elections and now it is the "standard" that everyone else must follow irrespective of how it is a rarely used and grammatically suspect arrangement. - SimonP 13:06, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
I don't like it either. Maybe it is not too late to bring down this terrible institution. Now if only I could find the original debate.... Pcb21| Pete 14:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was just the arbitrary way that [[User:RobLa|] named all the U.S. presidential election articles when he created them from public domain text. TC was the first to complain [1] and I agree that the format is not at all natural to link to. For example, 2000 U.S. presidential election is more natural and thus more likely to be directly linked to without using the pipe trick than U.S. presidential election, 2000. If you want to have this changed, then goto Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and argue your case. If a change is approved I volunteer to move all U.S. presidential election articles and fix any broken redirects. --05:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[[{year} {adjective of nationality} {type of election}]] – yes, let's do it! –Hajor 13:27, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Before y'all get fired up to make a bunch of changes, you might want to review the extensive discussions that have teken place on this topic: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles), Wikipedia:WikiProject POTUS Campaigns, Talk:John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004#Page title. These are ones I know of, there may be others. FWIW, I don't especially like how the titles look, but can live with it--especially since you can create redirects to use whatever formulation you prefer without needing the pipe trick. older≠wiser 13:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See also Talk:Canadian federal election for more discussion. Perhaps we should hold a poll to decide such a major change. - SimonP 15:03, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
My own preference would be [[{adjective of nationality} {type of election} (year)]] as being more logical and making the same election appears in a date-order list directly, but I'll off to the other discussions for a read... --VampWillow 16:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Years and Commas in Titles revisited

Being pointed here from here [the village pump - but now moved to the section above this one], my own view follows the comments above about logical ordering by importance and how a user might guess the title of an article. [[(where) (what) (when)]] as the order would therefore make the most sense (with each part optional if neccessary) and with no punctuation. This would give Athens Summer Olympics 2004, UK General Election 2005, etc. giving the major to minor order of importance of the elements and also allowing any list to fall into the natural sort order (as a user/editor will more frequently want to compare the same event across a range of years rather than a range of events within a single year. The use of prepositions or punctuation complicates matters as they are unlikely to be guessed and usage differs between countries/regions/languages. I'm therefore an option 2(a) as I would much rather no comma. --VampWillow 16:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Must confess that when I enthusiastically chipped in on the VP discussion I was unaware of all the earlier discussion on this matter. My preference is 2004 Panamanian presidential election simply because it's the one most likely not to need pipe-linking in an article text. While the comma is clumsy, but it does appear to be the default format – it sounds like a lot of work drumming up consensus and moving articles for pretty minor change in titling format. Dunno. Anyone else? –Hajor 13:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we should all just vote in the existing poll and see if a new consensus can be reached. - SimonP 13:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

[[(where) (what) (when)]] is ungrammatical. "UK General Election" is not a adjective of "2005" but the other way around. It is [[YEAR PLACE OFFICE election]] that is the most preferable option. However, breaking consistency is a bad idea. I'm all for it if we can get someone with a bot to move all these gazillion articles and fix all the links leading there. Otherwise, it's time to give up. --Jiang 01:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel it is grammar that should be the issue here, it should be logical searching/locating of content. In my local case I would be interested in the elections of a particular type (and by implication they all happen in one country); the year of such election is the minor key, not the major key. --VampWillow 18:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That makes it difficult to link articles in sentences without creating a pipe link. We can always have redirects. I don't see how rearranging the content in a title makes it easier to find. All that matters is that it's in the title... --Jiang 01:25, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There was a "volunteer to move all U.S. presidential election articles and fix any broken redirects" on the VP, but he neglected to sign his post... –Hajor 02:12, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Great Smoofle of 1842

What about non-repeating events?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(years_in_titles)/Archive_01&oldid=1083653649"