Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. 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

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Re: WP:ITALICTITLE

A substantial number of articles in Category: English words have italicized titles (ex: While, You) and occasionally also in the lede (ex: Trillion). The current MOS says that it should be used only for foreign phrases (and presumably individual words too?). By virtue of being in the category of English words, I think this is unnecessary. I have no idea where this stylistic decision came from but it's not on those articles' respective talk pages. I was intending to remove the italic title template and maybe add a sentence to the MOS section about articles about individual words. Thoughts? rtrb (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you forgot MOS:WAW. In my head, use of non-English vocabulary is just a conceptual subset of words-as-words use. Remsense 🌈 论 20:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, good catch. Presumably we should update the non italicized ones then. rtrb (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aye! In theory, we should only be using {{italic title}} there, and using {{title language}} to deal with non-English titles properly instead. That's an AWB run that seems juuust low-stakes enough that I never bother. Remsense 🌈 论 21:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Titling of articles on cover songs that might be of interest to watchers of this page. Please take a look and let me know over there if you have any opinions on the topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RFC on the convention for naming Australia place articles at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC: The convention for naming Australian place articles. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the rule that unless printworthy, absolutely required, or ambiguous, avoid substituting invalid characters with nonkeyboard characters (i.e. ♯ for #) in the actual article's title (except for redirects). For example, it would be unprintworthy to locate a title like "Skibidi#Toilet" at "Skibidi♯Toilet" (using a sharp sign) if "#" doesn't stand for "sharp". It would be better to locate it at "Skibidi Toilet (disambiguator)" instead. I propose this rule because I already see many articles avoiding nonkeyboard substitutions. For example, The #1s is located at The No. 1s. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 04:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're getting at, esp. re the example Skibidi Toilet. Dicklyon (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titles relating to "Sharp P"/"#P" should absolutely be located using "♯" because in these contexts, "#" does actually stand for "sharp" (♯), so it makes sense. However, A title like "Look Out for #1" is located at Look Out for Number 1, not "Look Out for ♯1". This is likely due to "#" standing for "number", so it makes sense to use "Number" as a substitute. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) _{Tamil speakers: Contribute here} 15:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have come here to ask this question as there seems to be a difference opinion anongst editors over the years regarding using HM or His/Her Majesty for departments/assets if the UK government. Articles like HM Revenue and Customs, and HM Prison Wakefield use the shortened HM, as reflected by their logos, but His Majesty's Coastguard and His Majesty's Prison Service use the full legal title, which is against COMMONNAME. Where should i take this? I started a discussion at Coastguards talk page but so far no interactions. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the shortened name is more commonly used, and unambiguous, it should be used. The full official name can be mentioned in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is at WP:ACROTITLE and the MOS guideline is at WP:ACRONYMTITLE. - Station1 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So based on WP:ACRONYMTITLE, if it is known by its initials, then it should be by that? Especially if its the common name? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]