Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Discussion

As we did with the great Country Reorganization Discussion, I suggest that each Wikipedian indicate their preferences. This is _similar_ to voting, except you can voice your approval or disapproval any way you want. One way that worked well with the country reorganization, was for people to "sign" their usernames (with three tildes ~~~) by _each_ proposal they favored. --Uncle Ed 22:20 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

"each" - IE, approval voting...

I think we should wind up the discussion. It has been more than a year already. Can't we formulate a current policy and accept it for now? Paranoid 20:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Potential policies

There are various potential policies, dependent on how certain questions (see below) are answered.


  1. Don't allow entries (specific titles) of egregiously offensive slogans -- Tannin, Martin, Deb 豎&#30505sv STÓD/ÉÍRE, Marshman
  2. Allow entries, don't use word slogan in title - Martin (first choice), The Cunctator, Dietary Fiber (first choice), Eloquence, Ryan_Cable, Paranoid
  3. Use the form "slogan 'X'" only for egregiously offensive cases
  4. Use the form "X (slogan)" only for egregiously offensive cases - The Cunctator, Martin, Dietary Fiber, Bagpuss, Eloquence, Hephaestos, Paranoid
  5. Use the form "slogan 'X'" for all slogan entries- cprompt STÓD/ÉÍRE, Tannin, Tompagenet
  6. Use the form "X (slogan)" for all slogan entries - Deb, Eloquence, Ilyanep, orthogonal
  7. Use the form "Slogan:X" for all slogan entries - Ilyanep

Background

For those of you who haven't been following the debate that has led up to this discussion, this whole question arose with the creation of the AIDS Kills Fags Dead entry. That entry caused outrage and calls for deletion. The entry was moved to hate speech, then homophobic hate speech, then 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, then slogan:AIDS Kills Fags Dead, then slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead', with stops in between at the original title.

Because of this one entry the policy of adding "slogan" to every entry on slogans was proposed.

Questions that need to be answered

Potential methods of dealing with the issue raise certain questions. Here is the question tree. Whether or not a decision ends in no more questions does not necessarily mean that decision is a good idea.

  • Do we allow entries of egregiously offensive slogans in Wikipedia?
    • No: Policy 1.
    • Yes: Do we use the word slogan in egregiously offensive slogan titles?
      • No: Policy 2.
      • Yes: Do we standardize the use of slogan for all slogan titles?
        • No: Policy 3, 4.
        • Yes: Policy 5, 6.
      • Yes: Do we use the form "slogan 'X'" or "X (slogan)"?
        • "slogan 'X'": Policy 3, 5.
        • "X (slogan)": Policy 4, 6.

Do we allow entries of egregiously offensive slogans in Wikipedia?

Do we allow entries on egregiously offensive slogans with the slogan in the title (assuming the entry is otherwise valid, in terms of content)? One potential policy is simply not to allow the AIDS Kills Fags Dead entry title to exist in any form. The content could be included under some other entry (eg homophobic hate speech)

  • Don't allow such entries
    • + avoids offense, POV implications, etc
    • + eliminates need for "slogan" in the the title of slogans
    • - obscures content
    • - goes against standard Wikipedia policy on offensiveness (see wikipedia:foul language)
  • Allow such entries
    • + follows standard Wikipedia policy on offensiveness
    • + follows standard Wikipedia policy on content
    • - raises offense, POV implications, etc.
    • -? raises naming issues, etc.

If egregiously offensive slogans are allowed to have entries:

The question of whether or not egregiously offensive slogans need to be marked somehow in the title is raised. The proposed method is to add the word slogan somewhere to the entry. Thus:

Do we use the word slogan in egregiously offensive slogan titles?

  • Never use slogan in the title:
    • + follows standard Wikipedia naming conventions
    • + the simplest and most natural title.
    • + easy to link to
    • +/- cf fuck, fag, nigger, etc...
    • - people may be offended
    • - people may incorrectly infer that Wikipedia endorses the slogan in the absence of an explicit disclaimer like 'slogan'
  • Use slogan in the title in egregiously offensive titles
    • + avoids some offense
    • + this is somewhat similar to disambiguation. In this particular case, between AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan) and AIDS Kills Fags Dead (scientific fact) (which would probably never exist)
    • - departs from standard Wikipedia naming conventions

If we use slogan in egregiously offensive slogan titles:

There are two separate questions that are raised if we decide to use slogan in the title.

Do we standardize the use of slogan?

  • Only use slogan in egregiously offensive titles. In this case, create a redirect from the title without the word "slogan" to the title with the word "slogan".
    • + generally follows standard conventions
    • + avoids some offense
    • + arguably conforms with the principle of least astonishment
    • - inconsistent
    • - departs from standard conventions (in case of offensive titles)
    • - may produce conflict over what is offensive, as people differ on just how offensive a title is
  • Include slogan in the title of all entries. Create redirects from text without the word "slogan" to text with the word "slogan":
    • + consistent
    • + avoids some offense
    • + avoids incorrect inferences of Wikipedia POV
    • + leaves no-one in any doubt that Wikipedia does not endorse a slogan, merely defines it
    • - departs from standard Wikipedia naming conventions
    • - makes all slogan entry titles longer
    • - raises debate whether an entry should be classified as a slogan or not
    • - hard to link to if unaware of this specific convention
    • - not natural to link to within text

If using the word slogan in titles:

If the decision to include the word slogan in the title is made, the question is raised as to how to do so. There are two reasonable candidates.

Where do we place the word slogan?

  • Use the form [[X (slogan)]]
    • + follows standard Wikipedia naming conventions.
    • - doesn't link naturally within the text of other entries (though redirects deal with that problem)
    • - in long slogans, the word may not be seen on google, so meaning people doing a google search may not realise it is a description not an expression of a slogan
    • - a controversial slogan may immediately generate an emotional response. Placing 'slogan' at the end may mean a person may not notice it until after they have emotionally responded positively or negatively to the slogan, so generating a POV not NPOV response.


  • Use the form [[Slogan 'X']]
    • + by immediately clarifying the status of a page, reduces the risk of causing offence and a POV reaction
    • + links more naturally within the text of other entries
    • + prevents the disclaimer 'slogan' from being cut off in long title by Google
    • - violates standard Wikipedia naming conventions
    • - puts disclaimer in front of content of entry title
    • - raises possibility of causing POV reaction by labeling with "slogan" at the front
    • - forces use of quotation marks in entry title

An independent question is how to capitalize the entries, and whether there needs to be a standard policy on how to do so.

How do we capitalize entries?

  • Always capitalize entries
Examples:
    • "Power to the People"
    • "Shock and Awe"
    • "Let's Roll"
    • "Workers of the World, Unite!"
    • "Kills Bugs Dead"
  • Never capitalize entries
    • "Power to the people"
    • "Shock and awe"
    • "Let's roll"
    • "Workers of the world, unite!"
    • "Kills bugs dead"
  • Use capitalization on a case-by-case basis
    • "Power to the people"
    • "Shock and awe"
    • "Let's Roll"
    • "Workers of the world, unite!"
    • "Kills Bugs Dead"

Discussion about naming policy for slogans

Please see the following articles. I wrote the first three, then renamed the last to conform to my proposed naming convention of Slogan:XYZ.

--Uncle Ed 20:00 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

I've moved all your slogan articles to Slogan '...', as it was pointed out on the mailing list that the colon looks like the designation of a separate article space. I hope you don't mind. -- Oliver P. 13:39 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
I don't mind at all; I'm glad someone saved me the trouble of doing it myself, and I hope that a "standard" has been created thereby. As for being unclear, I am still working on that; give me more time, please ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:12 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Call it a slogan only if it is egregiously offensive?

When considering how to name slogans, we should look at our standard naming policy. We don't have [['A Tale of Two Cities' book]] or [[book 'A Tale of Two Cities']] or [[Book:A Tale of Two Cities]], we have A Tale of Two Cities. We don't have [['Yesterday' song]] or [[song 'Yesterday']] we have Yesterday.

In the case where disambiguation is necessary, we don't have [[song 'American Pie']] and [[movie 'American Pie']] we have American Pie (song) and American Pie (movie).

So, what does this mean?

The default naming of the slogans should be Power to the people, etc.

I'm not sure if there's a better way to handle capitalization than on a case-by-case basis.

Now, what about the offensiveness? We don't tag or otherwise change entry names for entries like fuck or fag. When the fuck entry was first written, there were shouts of outrage and demands for censorship and other cries of doom and acts of civil disobedience.

Time has passed, the topless towers of Wikipedia have not been toppled, and they're good entries.

AKFD has similarly elicited cries of outrage. I'm sympathetic enough to the cries to think that it's not unreasonable to disambiguate the entry (though it is unreasonable to delete it). But if we do so, then we should do so in conformance to the standard Wikipedia naming policy; that is, AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan). --The Cunctator

These were posited as arguments against this policy:

    • - possibility of duplicate articles being created
    • - hard to link to if unsure if a particular slogan is "egregiously offensive"

These aren't real possibilities, if the default is to create entries without the word "slogan" in the title, and only add "slogan" to the title if there is objection, which is as it should be. Redirects will then solve any linking problems.

Who decides what is or is not offensive? The original creators of [[AIDS Kills Fags Dead]] had no realisation of just how offensive that slogan was in that format and it produced an edit war. Leaving it up to the individual means that there will be endless rows over whether a slogan is rascist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Are we going to have to wait for edit wars and pages full of complaints before we agree that {x} needs to be categorised as a slogan? And what about certain people who have a habit of ignoring consensus views and going ahead renaming anyway? It is simply going to produce row after row after row. Automatically putting in 'slogan' means there are no need for endless pointless heated rows. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:45 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Call it a slogan all the time?

Uncle Ed, Jtdirl and a few others prefer to include the word slogan in the titles of article about slogans. For example: Slogan 'Write once, run anywhere'. Although this contrasts with the usual standard of making the title as short as possible, it conforms with the principle of least astonisment.

For example, a reader may be bewildered or outraged by seeing a link in Google to an article entitiled AIDS Kills Fags Dead but would rather be intrigued or even relieved to find an article called Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. The latter formulation makes it clear instantly that it's about the slogan itself, rather than possibly being yet another hate-filled diatribe promoting the idea behind the slogan. --Uncle Ed 21:58 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

[[slogan 'X']] or [[X (slogan)]] ?

AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan) conforms to standard Wikipedia naming policy. slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' does not. On the other hand, the latter has "slogan" at the beginning, which some people have argued is an important distinction.

As Jtdirl writes,

I think in areas like the AKFD page, it is crucial that the fact that it is a slogan and not a statement is stated as clearly as possible, so I vote that slogan be used first. The first word particularly in potentially offensive title this should be up front, not buried at the end. It could be applied universally, it could be applied for particularly sensitive and potentially offensive article names, but the very first word a person sees in google will define how people react. Where there is a highly contentious article title that needs qualification of disclaimer of some sort, the place for that qualification should be at the start.
I find that argument lacks enough weight to go against standard Wikipedian naming. I think "(slogan)" at the end is good enough. Is this a vote? Bagpuss
Standard naming policy is not set in stone. It is constantly evolving as we see the need. This is an obvious and I would say undeniable need. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:45 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

As the defining characteristic of slogans is that they are slogans, it seems logical to state that they are slogans up front, in the form [[Slogan {title}]]. Drawing links to books, films etc is irrelevant. Books & films etc are real, existing items. A slogan is a propagandistic statement. Quoting them without calling them a slogan is POV because it can be seen in the manner of the title's use that you are endorsing the slogan. Calling it a slogan makes it clear that you are not endorsing it, merely stating it, hence the need to use the word. The defining characteristic is that it is a slogan, therefore it is logical that that word is stated first. Readers should not immediately that they are dealing with a slogan. There is always a danger that in a long slogan, on a google search the slogan qualification might not be seen, but cut off at the end. So the fact that it is a slogan should be stated at the begining where it cannot be lost or cut off. I propose this methodology. Jtdirl

(cutting in) I think there is a link to books. For example, many book titles express a POV - Steal this Book by Abbie Hoffman is an anti-capitalist slogan as well as a book title. Martin

A redirect can be used with the inclusion of 'slogan'. STÓD/ÉÍRE

I hope that Jtdirl is willing to accept that there is no consensus either way. Slogans such as "Let's Roll" and "War on Terrorism" have been entries as such for a long time, without any call for adding "slogan" to the titles.
I find arguments that rely on unlikely hypotheticals ("There is always a danger that in a long slogan, on a google search the slogan qualification might not be seen, but cut off at the end.") uncompelling.
The argument that not putting the title in quotes means that you endorse the slogan is strongly overstated. The only plausible argument is that not putting the title in quotes allows people to infer an endorsement. Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to guard against that inference? It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to consider doing so for truly egregious cases. But it does seem unreasonable to do so in all cases. --The Cunctator

As to whether to put 'slogan' at the beginning or end of a line, it makes sense to use one standard template not a haphazard 'we'll make up our mind as we go along'.

And yes if it is a slogan that means by definition it is espousing a POV, it should be said straight up that it is a slogan, not having it buried at the end where in the case of a long slogan, it might not be easily observable. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:24 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Linking to slogans

Agreeing with most of the above, I would suggest we add:

  1. Do not link to slogans unless:
    1. You are willing to write an article on it
    2. You are definitely sure that it needs an article
    3. An article already exists

I basically pinched this from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_standards, which I think is a good guide. Bagpuss 20:02 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Disclaimers

Another proposal is to add a (short) standard disclaimer to the top of slogan articles - Wikipedia does not endorse slogans. However, some people feel that we already have too many disclaimers as it is.

Discussion about what to vote on

Apparently the issue for Cunc and at least one other is avoiding offensive article titles, The issue for me and several others is whether or not to tag ALL slogan articles.

So let's vote on both issues:

Slogan tagging (in general)

  • Avoid using the tag slogan in the title, as much as possible

or

  • Use the tag slogan in the title as the default convention

--Uncle Ed STÓD/ÉÍRE

Ed, there are more questions than that, and that is not at all the issue for me. So please, please, don't make such assumptions. And please don't make calls for votes based on such assumptions. --The Cunctator

Discussion about people's actions

Since Cunctator will do whatever he damn well pleases, what's the point of discussing anything here? -- Zoe

To ensure he can't do what he damn well pleases. Well, that's the theory anyway. We'll have to ensure he actually pays any heed to the majority this time. STÓD/ÉÍRE And if not (which on past evidence is likely) revert any changes he makes on slogans.

Cunctator cut my refactoring from the top of the page. Then he cut this comment from the bottom of the page (accidentally, I must assume). -- Uncle Ed

from user talk:Jimbo Wales (delete/refactor as desired)

Jimbo, apart from its offensiveness, the 'AIDS kills Fags Dead slogan' page may also fall foul of incitement to legislation in many states. All it would take is for one body, for example the Equality Authority in Ireland, to formally complain and Wikipedia could get extremely negative media publicity, all for a page that I can see no logical justification for and which should be in the hate speech page or else attached to it. JtdIrL 21:18 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I'm not familiar with that page. I really don't care one speck about censorship laws around the world, but I can't imagine that a page with a title like the one you mentioned is the least bit consistent with our mission anyway. I'll look at it (if it hasn't already been deleted) and take appropriate action. Jimbo Wales 22:44 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Stevertigo has renamed it to homophobic hate speech, which is a far better name. As to the censorhsip bit, my big worry (apart from being personally offended by it) was not that there would be any legal problems, but that I would hate Wikipedia's first major media coverage in a country to be thanks to the use of a particular term that in the context is deeply offensive to many, so undermining our mission. and creating the impression that we are some sort of nutty, homophobic wannabe encyclopædia, not the quality sourcebook it is becoming. As someone who works as a journalist (as well as a historian) I could just image a journalist finding AIDS kills fags dead on Google, linking it to wiki, then ringing up someone to comment, then using their condemnation as a story under a headline 'US website slated for gay-bashing by . . . ' I regularly make the point to people on Wiki that if we want Wiki to be treated seriously, we have to take it seriously in how we write what we write. JtdIrL 23:50 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Cunctator has unilaterlly moved it to 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, despite continuing discussion and presumed agreement on the Talk page. -- Zoe

Don't presume my agreement. That's what he said. Is it offensive? Yes, but that's what he said.
Huh? If you had signed your comment, I might have understood what you were talking about, but as it now stands, I have no idea what you're trying to say. -- Zoe
Why should signing my comment have anything to do with whether you understand what I'm trying to say? (and, why should people be required to give email addresses to get a login?) .... What I'm trying to say is, the title is what he said. Yes, it's offensive, but so what? should we change "fuck" to "expletive" because someone finds it offensive?
I have no idea who the "he" is that you're talking about. -- Zoe
Sebastian Bach. Thanks for confirming my suspicion you haven't read the article you're worked up about.
People are not required to give an email address to get a login. --Camembert
Well I'm glad that was changed finally.
I don't think it ever was required -- the login page was just badly designed so it seemed like it was required. Tuf-Kat
If Mr. Anonymous bothered to read the talk page (which it is obvous 'he' hasn't), he'd know what was said, what the argument was, what the decision was, how it was implemented, and then how Cunctator unilaterally spiked everyone else's work, ignoring all the arguments, discussion and agreement. JtdIrL

The page was redirected but The Cunctator redirected again, then adapted the text to create new Homophobic hate speech so that it cannot be redirected back there, even though that was workable agreed solution on the talk page. JtdIrL 03:24 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that we should be grateful that netesq has not put in his overpriced 2c worth here. Arno

Hehe! -&#35918&#30505

I wonder if we can agree on the following points:

  • AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan) and Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' are both precise, self-explanatory titles which cannot be misunderstood.
  • The former is in better conformance with general naming standards.
  • The latter has a lower likelihood of causing distress or offense.

If so, then the question becomes whether the second or the third point is more important.

As a utilitarianist, I see distress and offense as negative feelings to be minimized whenever possible. Naming conventions on the other hand are dry abstract bean counter standards that don't deserve to be given any power of their own. When good can be done by breaking a rule, the rule should be happily broken. AxelBoldt 00:37 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

The "bean counter standards" do good in themselves: they increase the chances of accidental linking, and reduce the likelihood of duplicate articles. This makes wikipedia more efficient. As a utilitarianist, you might balance the unhappiness caused by easily offended people being offended, against the happiness caused by wikipedia being a better product. Martin
Ok, here's the balancing: while the potential for offense seems to be quite large, shown in part by the discussion on this page, the probability of a duplicate article on this topic surviving for longer than 10 minutes appears to be near zero, given the topic's prominence by now. Regarding accidental linking: I'm pretty sure that almost all articles that could potentially link to this article already do so, and that everybody who contemplates linking to it would search for it first. AxelBoldt 02:18 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
People might generally feel happier if they feel confident that there are rules taking care of everything. If rule-breaking was a generally accepted practice, it might make people more uneasy, and so less happy... (Isn't there a type of utilitarianism called rule utilitarianism...?) Anyway, I'm still not sure how to vote on the slogan business, but I'd quite like there to be a definite rule, because that would make me happy. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:20 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
The topic is prominent at the moment. I doubt it will retain its prominence by, say, May. At that point, the potential for offence will be reduced, while the chances of mislinking and duplication will be increased. Naming conventions should consider the Long Now, imo. Martin

Ed - the reason I moved this to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans) was to match everything else on wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Did you have a reason for moving it again? Martin

  1. My reason for moving it, was that it is not addressing what I felt was the original issue: i.e., if we have an article on a slogan, what shall we call it? Zoe, LittleDan, a few others and I all felt that the tag slogan should go somewhere in the title. Like Slogan: It's the real thing (for Coca-Cola). We sought consensus, but somehow the issue got sidestepped and the current article turned into a question of what to do with offensive slogans like AIDS kills fags dead. Since the original question is no longer being considered, and a new question is... I felt a name change would clarify that.
  2. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions for offensive slogans should go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (offensive slogans). Either way, it leaves room for splitting off a new Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (should slogans be tagged?) discussion. I've generally found that one page is not conducive to discussing 2 different issues at once.

Or maybe I'm just wrong. Shucks, it happens even to the best of us (immodest bow). If you rename the page, I won't protest. Cheers! --Uncle Ed 22:16 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Redirects

If we are to have slogans at [ [slogan 'blah blah blah'] ], or whatever, then I guess I can live with that, provided that we can continue to have redirects from the obvious accidental linking places. Martin 14:43 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)