User talk:Mike Cline/Articles Under Contemplation/Title Policy interpretations

The following is a random, unattributed list of statements interpreting WP:TITLE that have been made in WP:RM discussions.

• The most important purpose of the title is to tell the reader what the common name of the subject is.
• COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR
• I do interpret ENGVAR as saying that, when it comes to regional varieties, we should ignore COMMONNAME.
• Where WP:COMMONNAME fails, WP:RETAIN applies
• the idea that an eponymous principle is a proper name is really contrary to MOS:CAPS
• I don't see anything in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that suggests we take recentism into account, could you point that out? Primary usage and primary importance seem to be the main factors to be considered.
• The criterion here is common name. That some specialists may opt for indigenous names may be fashionable in a narrow literature but it is hardly common.
• Google ghits overcount usage due to its inclusion of historical accounts that use an outdated name, weakening the claim that ghits should determine "popularity" and in turn "current usage".
• It is a relatively unobtrusive and helpful disambiguation of a rather generic phrase.
• This is one reason we discourage disambiguation by dates; another is that it is doubtful they are of any help to the reader.
• We should have a consistent style on Wikipedia; respecting RS doesn't mean using a hodgepodge of styles
• WikiProjects are not a blank cheque to overrule [Title] policy, there needs to be a rationale. It's hard to imagine one that would justify the current name.
• As you know, we don't have "rules" on Wikipedia. There isn't a "policy" on naming, only "guidelines".
• I believe that this guy is more notable than the American football player John Doe.