Wikipedia talk:Article titles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article titles page.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

The project page associated with this talk page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Before making a substantial edit to the page, review the policy editing recommendations.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates to article titles and capitalisation.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62

Archives by topic:
Common names 1, 2, 3
Naming conflict 1, 2, 3
Precision and accuracy

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

The "unsupported characters" bullet point is outdated and redundant

On WP:TSC we read that we should avoid including special characters in titles because some OSes and browsers may not support them. Wikiblame indicates that this was added in 2009, when Unicode support was essentially non-existent. Nowadays browsers generally support most characters a user is likely to come across and tofu is rare. In addition, this line is completely redundant to the one directly above it which already says that symbols should be avoided in titles altogether. So it's not like removing it will lead people to think that emoji titles are now fine. I think there's no reason not to be bold here so I'll just remove it straight away. Warudo (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC) edited at 02:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles ending in periods

I just tried to shared a link to Charles W. Engelhard Jr. in discord, but the period at the end of the title got cut off and it sent people here instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Engelhard_Jr The same thing happened on Bluesky and Facebook. Is there a policy on this or does it need to be developed? Kire1975 (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn’t with WP… but with some browsers not allowing ending punctuation. That said, we have a simple fix: create a redirect at the the non-punctuated title pointing to the punctuated version. That way different browsers can all get you to the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, I've gone ahead and created the redirect for this particular case now. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that that may not be Unique. Do we have multiple non-redirect articles which have the same "Base Name" after any punctuation at the end is deleted?Naraht (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like how Oooh doesn't redirect to Oooh.? 162 etc. (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have a lot of them. Incomplete list at User:Pppery/Dots. I have been ensuring since about July 2024 that for every such article the article with the period can be found via some combination of hatnotes and disambiguation page entries from the title without the period, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]