CZ:Proposals/Should history articles be named with general terms first?

The issue

Elaborate the issue here. It is an issue (it takes the form of a question), not a proposal, properly speaking.

Discussion

• I think most people would type in History of France, so that should be the style. Of course they could also go to France first, and there would be the required link. Ro Thorpe 14:24, 9 February 2008 (CST) - And so it is. As for 'French history', I think most people would not choose it, a bit informal. Ro Thorpe 14:27, 9 February 2008 (CST)
• Questions: are we limiting this discussion to places, like History of France, or does it also extend to things, like History of the kilt? If yes, why? Why should we limit this to the history workgroup? Why not make one rule for the whole of Citizendium? Would people actually search for Kilt, history or History of the kilt? And why should we limit ourselves to the old-fashioned way of keeping tab of books in a library, where people search for books in little drawers of cards by the first word according to the Dewey Decimal system? Isn't this an internet site? Don't we have redirects? --Christian Liem 20:42, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Well, if I wanted a history of the kilt, I'd probably just type in 'kilt' & be happy if there were immediately visible a link to 'history of the kilt', or, for that matter 'kilt, history'. Ro Thorpe 11:55, 10 February 2008 (CST)

I agree in the sense that many things have a "History Of" intinsically built into them, so to speak. Or they should. Baseball, for instance, ought to have a historical development section. I know (and Ro will agree, since he worked on it also) that Tennis has a long historical section. So I don't think we want separate articles like History of baseball, or Baseball, the history of, etc. etc. The word "history" ought to be confined, in my opinion, to *real* history, such as History of France, or France, history of, or France, the history of. Hayford Peirce 11:26, 11 February 2008 (CST)

First, I don't think it's a given that someone would type in "History of France" or "History of the kilt". I know I would probably start with either "France" or "Kilt" first, and the "France history" or "Kilt history". And on CZ, if you find France or Kilt you can probably navigate through that article, find the history section, and if there is an article that expands on this history it should be linked from there. However, I also don't think we should be naming articles simply by what keyword search people will use. Redirects solve this problem. I personally support the "France, history" style for organizational purposes within the workgroup.

To Hayford's point, everything has a *real* history. Just certain histories aren't covered by the history workgroup. :) I think if a topic is big enough, such as baseball or tennis, those histories might merit their own article to avoid overwhelming the main article. That should probably be the call of the workgroup editors. --Todd Coles 11:48, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, I think that at some point someone has already suggested that the tennis article have its history section broken off in one way or another. But, unfortunately, out of the 10 or 15 supposed Sports Editors, none of them seem to be active at all and there's certainly never been any feedback from any of them about anything. Hayford Peirce 11:53, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I'd say the title of the article that appears in the article itself should be History of France but the article should appear in alphabetized lists as France, history. The checklist already has an option to do this that was put in for listing people by last name, right? Warren Schudy 20:18, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Personally, I like "France, history" as a general style. I think there is a virtue in having a distinctive style for some things, as it helps to build a distinctive identity. Having a formal title style also seems to raise the interesting possibility that they could be coupled with evocative subtitles. I could imagine sometime a cluster of articles "France, history: Cro Magnon man to Charlemagne" etc. Gareth Leng 09:40, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, I definitely agree with Gareth. Hayford Peirce 10:33, 12 February 2008 (CST)