It does help. Thank you. It helped me zero in on a more concise argument. At any rate, the issue at Sonny Liston is the other editor thinks they understand basic grammar better than me, and that therefore "The Big Bear" must have 'The' capitalized in the midst of a sentence. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk23:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is using definite articles to disambiguate between topics acceptable?
According to WP:NATURALDIS, it is often preferred to use natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation in instances where there is a possible natural disambiguation. Is it acceptable to do so even when the natural disambiguation is done by placing a definite article? The current formulation of this guideline does not give any indication about this, and I have never seen a case where it was decided to use a definite article as natural disambiguation, so it seems Wikipedians have generally decided "no".
There was an RFC about this and the result seems to indicate yes, but that was ten years ago. I do not know if the RFC is still in effect. If it is, I would like to see this guideline updated to reflect its results.
On another question, why is the definite article generally regarded as an exception to WP:NATURALDIS? If somebody could explain the reasoning to me, I would be very appreciative. Ladtrack (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably a million examples. I don't even know where to start. I'll use one of the examples on this page. The title for the band usually referred to as the Eagles is Eagles (band). I get why removing the "the" is preferred, but in this case it would not be the primary topic for Eagles, hence the disambiguation. Now, WP:NATURALDIS says that natural disambiguation is often preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, which is the current use applied there. By that metric, it should be The Eagles, which it is the primary topic for, based on the fact that that term redirects there. But this guideline apparently supersedes that?
The RFC I linked says that allowing the definite article in the title as a form of natural disambiguation, as in the example I provided, is acceptable. But as you can see, it was not put into place for the article for this band, and as far as I can see, has not been put into place anywhere else either. If it still applies, do you think it would be possible to put that result somewhere in this guideline so people know about it? Ladtrack (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Eagles is a case that has been much discussed. Here is the most recent summary. Apparently, the consensus is that the name of the band does not include "The", although they are often known as such and simple grammar generally requires using "the" in prose references. This is an example of an an exceptional case that doesn't provide a good basis for making policy. older ≠ wiser11:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there a many cases where "The" is used for natural disambiguation. I'm not aware that current guidelines prohibit using "The" as natural disambiguation where the usage is appropriate. older ≠ wiser11:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but I feel that these are a little bit different. Both of the examples you gave are referring to instances where the official title, not the common name, includes the "the". This is explicitly permitted by this guideline, in which it gives examples like The Scream or The New York Times. The two examples you provided are in that vein, in which the actual, official title of the work includes the "the", which is why the article in question does so as well. It is not because of disambiguation. I didn't carefully dig through every example listed at the prefix search, but almost all the ones I checked seem to also have the "the" included in the proper title.
What I am describing is a little different. The band the Eagles should ideally be at the title "Eagles". However, the bird is the primary topic for that name, and so Eagles redirects there. From there, there are two options. The first is the band's official name, Eagles, with a parenthetical to distinguish it from the bird. That title would be Eagles (band). The other option would be what is not the official title, but is instead the common name of the band, which is The Eagles. Which to use? Well, WP:COMMONNAME says that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Plus, according to WP:NATURALDIS, names that are disambiguated without parenthetical disambiguation (The Eagles) is preferred to names that include parenthetical disambiguation (Eagles (band)).
So, both of these seem to me to indicate that the better title would be The Eagles. So why isn't it? Well, from my check of the talk page archives, it seems to me that a big reason is because of this guideline. Now, of course, this guideline does not supersede or contradict those policies. And the result of the 2014 RFC agrees with that, finding that disambiguation is an acceptable reason to include the definite article. But that conclusion has not generally been implemented, probably because this guideline was not changed to reflect the result of the RFC. I'm asking for a sentence to reflect that result. This wouldn't be a change in what the guideline means, just a change in wording to clarify.
By the way, if you want other examples of people avoiding a natural disambiguation because it would include a definite article, I dug up a few here. All of these have the common name (with the definite article) redirecting to the article, but stick with parenthetical disambiguation in order to avoid using a "the". Hopefully this will show that current standard practice is to avoid using a definite article even when it could be disambiguation.
•General Lee (car) should really be The General Lee, but a fix proposal failed primarily because of concern that this guideline applied.
•Watusi (dance) used to be The Watusi, but it was changed along with a few other dances because of this guideline.
By the way, sorry if I seem long-winded or as though I am belaboring the point. I really appreciate you taking the time out to answer my question, and I feel that I should repay the courtesy by making sure my response is thorough. Ladtrack (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, it's been a week since anyone responded, I'm doing it. If I mess up the formatting or wording, please correct it for me, I'm still new at this. If you disagree, please leave a comment here when you revert so we can talk about it. I would really have rather talked about this first, but here we are. Ladtrack (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment on use of definite articles as a form of natural disambiguation
In 2014, there was an RfC about using definite articles to achieve natural disambiguation. I have copied the proposal almost exactly below (only fixing some links that have changed since then), although I would urge all participants to read the RfC itself.
Is putting "The" at the beginning of an article title an acceptable innovation for WP:NATURALdisambiguation?
Context: Recently, a move request at Hulk (comics) to Hulk resulted in a "no consensus" close. Multiple editors, while perhaps opposing the proposed move, suggested moving Hulk (comics) to The Hulk instead (as The Hulk already redirects there). One editor intelligently noticed that WP:THE currently is directly opposed to that, as per its dictum that The Joker redirect to Joker (comics), and not vice-versa. But should that be the case?
Please respond support if you believe adding "the" is OK in order to disambiguate.
Please respond oppose if you think adding "the" should not be allowed, as is currently the case.
Thanks for helping Wikipedia.
For additional context, the article currently located at Hulk was then at Hulk (comics).
The RfC was closed as follows:
Result: The definite article may be used to disambiguate articles in certain circumstances.
There were 8 supports and 4 opposes. One oppose was based on the objection that the DABNAME guidance would be affected, but how this was the case was not explained and it doesn't seem true to me (nothing stemming from what has been discussed here would mean we would not retain the DAB page Hulk, for example). A second oppose was made on the basis that "the" should only be used if it is part of the formal name of the article subject. However, that argument seems contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. A third oppose suggests that "the" is insufficient disambiguation because we use it in many articles. I can't work out if there is a typo in the comment or not, but this doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The fourth oppose was on the basis that it would be confusing. I don't think any of these are knockout arguments, and so the numerical victory of the supports should be recognised.
There also seems to be consensus that the applciation of the principle should be resticted to article titles where there is genuine natural disambiguation (e.g. one this is commonly called "The Foo", the other is called "Foo" and not normally "The Foo") and a genuine need for disambiguation. There also seems to be consensus that a case-by-case approach should be taken and common sense applied to avoid unnecessary confusion, and so that conflicting considerations can be taken into account.
To the best of my knowledge, no change was ever implemented after the closure of that RfC, and it has not been overturned or overruled by a subsequent RfC.
Should WP:THE include some language that indicates that use of a definite article to achieve natural disambiguation is acceptable?
An example of proposed language (although this is open to change) could be something like this as a third condition, after the first two listed:
3. Use of definite articles is acceptable as a form of natural disambiguation, if the article is not the primary topic for the article title without parenthetical disambiguation.
Here are some articles whose titles might be different if this were to pass (all of these have redirects in the format of "the x"):
Support as nominator. This should have been done ten years ago, and the RfC result still stands. Just because nobody bothered to implement it back then doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented now. This clearly is what was meant by that RfC; the Hulk (comics) to The Hulk example given by the nominator pretty clearly would have fallen under this exemption. In terms of actual, practical reasoning for this change, WP:NATURALDIS is a policy, and WP:THE is a guideline. Policies overrule guidelines. This means that WP:THE should have a carveout for WP:NATURALDIS, instead of presumably overruling it, which is currently (mistakenly) the status quo.
I'm not offering a bolded opinion yet, but my gut reaction is not favourable. I wouldn't be opposed when "The" is part of the most common name (or very nearly so) or it is unclear whether "The" is part of the proper name, but it should not be as common as this proposal seems to desire. Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's very reasonable. By this criteria, the Penguin, the Charleston, and the Roundhouse would still work, and the Politics seems to be split between that and just "Politics". Do you think you could come up with some sort of language that would specify just the common names? Like I said, I'm not especially married to my wording, so I'm more than happy for any alternative ideas. Ladtrack (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would we determine that it is part of the proper name and not just commonly written/spoken as a grammatical feature of English? Presumably, by looking at capitalization in running text in reliable sources; consulting dictionaries, usage guides, and other encyclopedias; and article title/naming convention standards that are already in place. In theory this would be no different than the status quo. In practice, this would likely inspire more debates about when to use "The" and inconsistent, nonstandard article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – To begin with, the referenced RfC is shaky grounds for a change in guidelines. Policies and guidelines are the authoritative sources for documenting consensus, not RfCs — rather than digging up decade-old RfCs from the archives, editors seeking to amend PAGs should seek consensus via a new RfC such as this one, which should have focused on making new arguments and less so on dusting off old discussions that were never codified (for good reason, more on that later). We cannot arbitrarily interpret RfCs ourselves: policies and guidelines are meant to do that for us. In general, PAGs should also summarize existing consensus rather than invent new rules; in that regard, the nominator has not presented evidence that there is widespread sentiment for the proposed exception, nor widespread instances of editors choosing to WP:IGNORE the rules (which would indicate the guideline is problematic and change is necessary), but has actually listed out numerous articles that point to current consensus being against such a change!In any case, not only is the cited RfC more than a decade old and not exactly well-attended, but it also makes no mention of a proposed change to WP:THE, so no action was correctly taken 11 years ago. The only consensus attained in that discussion was that the definite article may be used to disambiguate articles in certain circumstances — in other words, when deciding how to naturally disambiguate a topic, "the" may be considered a potential candidate. Well, duh! This statement merely states the obvious, as there is no qualifier that I know of that is somehow barred from being used in WP:NATURAL disambiguation other than obscure or made-up names (every time I come across this part, I roll my eyes at association football's ridiculous title, but I have no desire to poke that bear). It would have been pointless to insert such an obvious fact that does not say anything meaningful. Furthermore, the article that the RfC dealt with is not even located at The Hulk or Hulk (character) anymore, and there has (apparently, assuming this was the most relevant and recent discussion you could find) been no further discussions since then reaffirming its findings, so we have no idea simply by looking at that discussion whether or not consensus has changed. Not something you want to put your money on.Now, regarding the merits of the argument. WP:THE outlines several problems with using "the" at the beginning of article titles, namely the length of the name, the quick search function, and sorting, as well as them being noise words. Unfortunately, the nominator did not explain why they believe there is good reason to sacrifice these myriad problems for the sake of natural disambiguation, so I must oppose adding an overly lenient exception that would open the floodgates and cause problems with consistency. No one opposes "the" being used as natural disambiguation, but this must be done so contingent on at least one of the two conditions listed at WP:THE being met; if using "the" would mean failing both criteria, then there is no compelling reason to do so because it isn't worth it. Keep in mind that due to the problematic nature of beginning article titles with "the", the existing two criteria are extraordinary edge cases that the guideline has reluctantly given considerable wiggle room to. If it is truly essential to use "the" in an article's title, then it should easily fall into either of the criteria or one of its carve-outs listed below.Finally, the assertion that because WP:NATURAL overrides WP:THE is false. While policies take precedence over guidelines, NATURAL does not say that natural disambiguation must be used — it says it is sometimes preferred, not always. Since WP:THE has specific guidance on this (but NATURAL does not), it takes precedence and we cannot dismiss it. The two PAGs do not contradict, nor override, each another. The status quo is fine.InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
has actually listed out numerous articles that point to current consensus being against such a change!One of the ways consensus is determined is through requests for comment. Requests for comment are specifically meant to change existing consensus, which this one did (and if it did not, I am attempting to do it now). I thought this was obvious but apparently not. Yes, these articles are not currently at naturally disambiguated titles. I propose that they should be (along with other, similar pages). This is how requests for comment work.
To give further information on this, I am not saying that Wikipedia currently runs on this rule. I am saying it should have, and mistakenly does not. Implementation mistakes do happen, and when they do, the mistake should be fixed rather than assuming that because it wasn't implemented at first, it shouldn't have been implemented at all. Here's a specific example of this happening. For years, every number over 100 went straight to the year that that number was attached to, so (for example) 911 went to the year, even though there were several other contenders for the number 911. This is because of the following language in WP:NCNUM: "By community consensus, an article name that is a number in Arabic numerals101 and above represents a calendar year in the Common Era, up till several decades in the future." The RfC linked there did not actually say that, somebody made a mistake transcribing it to the policy. When that was discovered, they didn't just keep going with what the policy said just because that was how they had been doing things, they fixed it to what it should have been all along and then adjusted editing practices accordingly. That is what I am doing here.
in other words, when deciding how to naturally disambiguate a topic, "the" may be considered a potential candidate. Well, duh! This statement merely states the obvious Is it obvious? I would maintain it is not being followed except in a very small minority of cases. These examples could be naturally disambiguated from their primary topics (or from the disambiguation page when there is no primary topic), but are not. So clearly it is not obvious to editors.
Unfortunately, the nominator did not explain why they believe there is good reason to sacrifice these myriad problems for the sake of natural disambiguation Fair enough. I'll do them here, one at a time.
the length of the name This doesn't really apply here. All of these are shorter with a "the" than with parenthetical disambiguation. This is more for cases where adding a "the" doesn't change the meaning, like how "Eiffel Tower" is shorter than "The Eiffel Tower".
the quick search function, and sorting These both have the same answer, which is the same one I gave you last time. Just for your convenience: "As for the search issue: this runs both ways. Just as people may search "Flash" and not see the comic character in the dropdown, they also may search "The Flash" and not see the comic character in the dropdown. I don't particularly care if you believe me or not, but this character really is widely referred to as the Flash, more so than just Flash, so it is a very likely search term. Either way, we're disadvantaging somebody." This also applies to almost all of these. If you start typing "The Charleston", which is overwhelmingly the common name of that dance, it doesn't come up for quite awhile. If you do (for example) "Charleston dance", it shows up.
noise words These are clearly not noise words. Adding them changes the meaning.
I appreciate the clarification, but I remain unpersuaded. My instinct tells me that most readers will likely not care to include "the" in their search query — whether out of laziness, for simplicity, by instinct or force of habit, out of ignorance, or because it is common practice outside of Wikipedia to drop the article or move it to the end with a comma. Redirects can help those in the minority who go out of their way to include "the" in their query, and by "minority", I mean the literal 1% of readers who do this: [1][2][3][4][5]. As for sorting, it appears you've misunderstood as it has nothing to do with searching: sorting refers to automatic alphabetization in category pages and sortable tables, which definite articles cause problems with and must be manually fixed with {{DEFAULTSORT:}} (for categories) or data-sort-value (for tables). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification on sorting. You are right, I did misunderstand. Do we fix the sorting as a matter of practice? I checked List of genocides, which I am sure is a high-profile article with many views and edits, and sorted it alphabetically. The Holocaust (which, regardless of correctness, has been at that title for ages and would have had plenty of time to be sorted correctly) is under T, right between Tamil genocide and Trail of Tears. I checked List of paintings by Edvard Munch too and all the "the"s are right next to each other. The Beatles are at T here as well, instead of at B. I wouldn't know how to do a comprehensive search on this but at best there doesn't seem to be any consistent way to sort these, so I hardly see how things could be more messed up than they already are.
and by "minority", I mean the literal 1% of readers who do this: That's because 99% of people get to articles from internal links and Google, both of which massively prioritize current article titles. The Beatles is at 98.1% use of a "the", and Eagles (band) is at 99% without a "the". Maybe the Beatles are better known with a "the" than the Eagles. Maybe. But this would imply that 97% of readers refer to one band as "the Beatles" and the other one as just "Eagles". This obviously isn't true, as anyone who is familiar with either of these bands would know. The actual reason for this is that only about 1% of people actually use the search, and everyone else just gets sent to the current title by internal links or Google. If this article had been called "The Charleston" from the beginning, it would be 99% of readers ending up there. Ladtrack (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those tables are obviously being sorted incorrectly, as it is universal practice to disregard "the" (except in titles of works) when sorting alphabetically. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, and just because some articles are sorting incorrectly doesn't mean other articles should follow suit. Tables are particularly difficult to "police" because there is no way to track them, but I'll bet that most WP:FLs have correctly sorted tables. As for categories, I would say patrollers/WikiGnomes have generally done a good job at tagging articles with sortkeys. Regarding redirect views, while it is certainly not a perfect measure, I couldn't come up with another way to gauge search behavior (any suggestions?), so this was the best I could do. But you would think the percentage would be higher if most people subconsciously include "the" when searching. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have one, unfortunately, but I think I can prove that most people use either internal links or Google. The Buddha was changed in mid-October of 2022. From January 1 to now, so almost 5 months, 82% of people got there from "The Buddha", and if you include "Gautama Buddha" which was a previous title of the article that still has many links pointing to it, you get to almost 94%. The five months before October 2022, "The Buddha" was less than 0.2% (yes, that's 2/1000) of people, and almost 93% of people got there from "Gautama Buddha". That means that to get to this article, 6-7% of people used the search feature, 82% of people use either Google or post-October 2022 links that point directly to "The Buddha", and 12% of people use links that were made before October 2022. If any substantial mass of people were naturally shying away from using a "the", you would not see a 400x increase in "The Buddha" just because that became the new title of the article. Ladtrack (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reader navigability/functionality is one of many priorities; it usually does not trump other considerations although it can be a deciding factor in a close call. We avoid nonstandard usage, POV/non-neutral titles, and commonly used but inaccurate names all the time, except where consensus determines such titles are the most appropriate in a particular case. Redirects, DAB pages, and other site features allow us to maintain the integrity of article titles while anticipating various user behaviors. InfiniteNexus seems to have shown this impacts a small minority of users, but even if were searching (or dropping) "the", we have sound reasons not to over-use it. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose at this time. I'm concerned about the potential proliferation of article titles like The Charleston which don't align with standard usage and may encourage nonstandard usage or inconsistency in running text (we would still write "the Charleston" mid sentence, right?) and inevitable questions about why we don't have The Titanic, etc. for "consistency". The status quo (likely) serves us better than the proposed update. A natural disambiguation argument may strengthen an argument that is borderline, but reasonable, per the main criteria at WP:THE. It's appropriate to incorporate natural disambiguation and other policies and guidelines into an analysis of a particular subject to make case-by-case, consensus-based determination.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we would still write "the Charleston" mid sentence, right? Yes, we would. We refer to the Doctor, or the New York Times, or the Crown with the lowercase mid-sentence. All of them are current exceptions to WP:THE, and none of them cause much confusion as far as I know. I don't think this would be more confusing than any of these.
and inevitable questions about why we don't have The Titanic, etc. for "consistency". Of all the planets in the solar system, only one, Mercury, has (planet) in the article title. I am sure people have asked why that is, and pointed out that this is not consistent with the other planets. The answer we give them is that consistency does not apply to disambiguation. The reason that it would be "the Charleston", and not "the Titanic", is because Titanic does not need to be disambiguated, and Charleston does. Ladtrack (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not lowercase The New York Times mid-sentence. You're also focused too much on "the rules" — while we aren't required to consistently apply disambiguation to articles of the same type, it is still good practice to strive to be as consistent as possible. You can argue that's a purely aesthetic reason, but the rationale behind WP:CONSISTENT holds true even if it's non-binding. I'll also throw in another subjective aesthetic argument that mid-link capitalization generally doesn't look very nice, especially when juxtaposed with another link that leaves "the" unlinked (i.e. The President of the United States lives in the White House. looks better, cleaner, and more MOS:CONSISTENT than The President of the United States lives in the the White House.). Maybe that's just me though. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah you're right about the Times. My bad. Change that example to the Needles, then.
The President of the United States lives in the the White House. We would actually lose that first "the" (which hopefully makes it look a little cleaner than it would otherwise), although since White House would not be affected by this proposal it's kind of a moot point. Plus, if you prefer, you can just write sentences like "the most popular dance craze of the 1920s was most likely the Charleston." instead of "the most popular dance craze of the 1920s was most likely the Charleston.", there's not really anything stopping you from doing that. Ladtrack (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the Needles is also ambiguous but presumably this is the primary topic (I'm not familiar with this subject and haven't dug into it—maybe that title needs to be revisited). While I am not totally convinced, there may be an argument that the Charleston satisfies criterion 1 under WP:THE. Wikilink behavior in article bodies is at best a secondary consideration. WP avoids unnecessary piped linking like the[[the Charleston|Charleston]] although it is difficult to entirely prevent such behavior and in some instances editorial discretion and consensus may deem it permissible. Regardless, article title are held to a particularly high standard, with redirects, piped linking, and other tools available to provide flexibility in running text. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at The Needles, the "the" is almost universal in running text with exceptions being constructions like "the famous Needles" and proper names like "Needles Landmark Attraction". A majority of reliable sources capitalise the "The" in running text but it's not an overwhelming majority. The Isle of Wight rock formation seems to be the clear primary topic* for the term "The Needles"/"the Needles" but definitely is not for "needles". The current title therefore seems to be perfectly compatible with the current guidance at WP:THE and does not serve as a useful example when arguing for change. *For my searches from the UK, I didn't attempt to depersonalise results. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, adding a natural disambiguation criterion to WP:THE appears irrelevant to the determination for the/The Needles. I continue to see that Ladtrack's proposal creates more problems than it solves. Examples discussed are either fine as they are, would arguably reach the same conclusion with respect including or omitting "the/The" under the current and proposed standard, or in a few cases *maybe* warrant case-by-case re-evaluation primarily based not the current standard with natural disambiguation *maybe* adding some secondary support. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for asking you to potentially repeat yourself but what problems are you referring to? One of the examples listed here is the Beatles, which is basically always referred to in running text as "the Beatles" and not "The Beatles". Having a "the" in the title doesn't stop people from understanding that it should be lowercase mid-sentence, so I don't see why we would have issues with other articles being the same way. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as a problem to have a bunch of articles with "the" in the title base solely on natural disambiguation. Titles would appear inconsistent to most readers and even editors. Even if we can show that, well actually, it's not inconsistent because of our idiosyncratic policies, I see this as undesirable. This is perhaps a small problem in the grand scheme of things but I just don't see the benefit to changing the guidance here. The discussion and the examples don't highlight an actual problem this would solve. As I've said, I would entertain incorporating natural disambiguation, common name, and other considerations into a decision on a particular article, especially where it probably satisfies WP:THE but is perhaps borderline. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, there are three main benefits.
The first is searching: you have to type "The Penguin" in full before you get the comic-book character; if you type even one letter less or happen to misspell "penguin", the results are filled with other things and the comic-book character doesn't appear at all. Meanwhile, if it was the other way, you could type "Penguin Batman" or "Penguin comics" or "Penguin DC" or "Penguin character" into the search bar and get the article you want; this solution is much better for people looking for the article.
The third reason is simply that it looks better to have natural disambiguation in the title. It's shorter, doesn't require use of parentheses, and is generally easier to guess and to remember the URL of. This can be attributed at least partially to personal preference, I suppose, but looking better and being more intuitive is the main reason that WP:NATURALDIS exists and that's a widely accepted policy. Ladtrack (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that several of these examples look goofy, especially when considered in a vacuum. Overall, I find that the current approach produces more consistency project-wide, and that the proposed change will produce more inconsistency. There are many subjects that are usually called "the XYZ" but that do not require disambiguation, so we typically don't include the in the article title. The current scheme reduces inconsistency with such titles, although a few do get the and a few similar cases do end up with parenthetical disambiguation. It's inevitable that some subjects will have so many synonymous articles that parenthetical disambiguation is required. The Flash was resolved under the current guidance and perhaps some of these other examples (Spectre (DC Comics character); the Charleston) could be, too. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, reading this is already giving me a heart attack. It would truly be horrible if any more articles were unnecessarily moved to include "the" at the beginning of their titles, especially on a technicality that boils down to, "It's allowed, so we should do it!" Away with consistency, simplicity, and cleanliness, I guess. The purpose of WP:THE is to avoid "the" unless absolutely unavoidable — there is nothing wrong with parenthetical disambiguation (however long it is, because it clearly the "lesser of two evils" between having a problematic noise word in front), and NATURAL does not say natural disambiguation is required, only "sometimes" preferable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Away with consistency, simplicity, and cleanliness, I guess. I personally think using the "the" is both simpler and cleaner, but this is ultimately a matter of opinion on both our ends. A reader is not going to understand our current exceptions guideline (why the Rolling Stones but the Ramones? We do it because of the formal names but both use "the" equally in the public view) so this honestly does not feel like a very compelling argument.
NATURAL does not say natural disambiguation is required, only "sometimes" preferable. Well, then, I suppose that it's lucky that my proposal says "is allowed", not "is required". In fact, since I didn't say it was preferable at all, this wording is actually even softer than WP:NATURAL is. Funny how things work out, huh? Ladtrack (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm certainly not happy with the carve-out for band names, as it creates huge inconsistency problems. I fully agree that it makes no sense that we have The Beatles but Ramones — do we expect non–band geeks to know which bands have "the" as part of their names and which bands have "the" outside of their names? However, that clause has been the enforced consensus for years, so I am not going to poke the bear. Really, the only blanket exception that makes sense are titles of works (including newspapers), because The is always italicized/quoted and capitalized mid-sentence, and it takes five seconds to figure out whether the official title includes "the", so it's uncontroversial. Every other topic requires time-consuming RMs on every article to determine (1) whether "the" is part of the official name, (2) whether "the" is allowable under WP:THE and other PAGs, and (3) whether doing so is advisable; and the result is a messy and inherently arbitrary mix of the's and no-the's.In all honesty, most style-related RMs pertain to WP:LAME, trivial matters of little importance or practical value (see the law of triviality) — you said yourself that most readers access Wikipedia articles through links and external search engines anyway, so it doesn't actually matter that much what article title we use because most readers don't care. This is why I think we should strive for consistency (either every article should use "the" or omit it, and the latter is obviously more advantageous per the problems we discussed last week; however, "every article" is not realistic because there are always edge cases, so "most articles" is the best alternative and we should keep exceptions to a minimum) and simplicity (if the official title can be easily determined, go for it, but otherwise, just keep it straightforward and leave "the" out). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree that some examples should ideally be able to be resolved with current guidelines; I think the standard of "prevailing common usage" probably should cover a whole lot more than it is usually interpreted as (a few musicians and one specific Doctor Who character, as far as I can tell), and would by default cover most of the cases that currently crop up. I do not, however, think that they would actually be implemented this way, unfortunately. If you have a better way to fix this, I'd love to hear it (and will gladly change my proposal if I agree) but this is what I came up with. Imperfect, perhaps, but it's the best I could do. Ladtrack (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, the status quo is not broken. I encounter titles I don't personally like but which make sense to me in light of all the different factors to consider. When a particular title or family of titles are out of whack, we have a pretty good system and set of policies and guidelines for dealing with it. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank goodness someone finally sent that article (Holocaust) to RM. I've been irked at the blatant WP:THE violation for some time but didn't want to wade into such a sensitive area. Regarding the Flash, that RM was closed on the grounds of WP:THE's existing exception for commonly used proper name[s], not the baseless NATURAL argument. Which again shows that the existing criteria already give us wide latitude, and the last thing we need is to burst open the floodgates. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, mostly. I mention The Flash because relevant arguments were raised there. I think it shows the current policy and process working (even if some editors would reach a different conclusion) and highlights potential implications of the proposal here. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My gut feeling is that this wouldn't be necessary if WP:5P5 were being applied correctly, as this is a natural common-sense exception to the guideline. But the amount of wikilawyering above over whether specific provisions should control over the general and whether policies should always control over guidelines speaks for itself as to the current state of wiki-practice. Given that, I find the above list of examples of misapplication of the existing guideline text persuasive. People are clearly giving this guideline controlling weight in practice, whether they should or not. And the best way of fixing that is simply to update the WP:THE guideline text as proposed. -- Visviva (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and haven't forgotten, hence my comments that whether to include "the" is really just a behind-the-scenes decision, so we should simply opt for consistency and simplicity. Why add "the" when it would cause more problems than it potentially solves? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per InfiniteNexus. I also agree with the result of the 2014 RFC, that a "case-by-case approach should be taken (when "The" is part of the proper name) and with the existing language in WP:THE that "the default rule is to exclude them unless certain specific conditions are met." As for WP:NATURALID, WP:PARENDIS is also policy. NATURALID speaks to specificity of the topic, hand fan > fan (implement), not whether an indefinite article makes the topic more clearly differentiated. --Enos733 (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PARENDIS specifies that it only applies "when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." Other options would be preferred when available. I am open to including some sort of language emphasizing that it shouldn't be blanket-applied, and additional considerations should be taken when applying this exception. Perhaps we could add to the end something like "Editors are advised to use discretion when deciding whether to use indefinite articles as natural disambiguation." Would this satisfy your concerns? Ladtrack (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
