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"):
I am requesting community input on whether the following sentence should be included in the lead section of the article on T.V.S.N. Prasad:
"His bureaucratic career, including his role as Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana, has been the subject of sustained public and legal scrutiny due to a series of controversies and administrative decisions that attracted criticism from courts, media, and civil society."
This sentence summarizes significant events during the subject’s public service career, as detailed in the "Controversies" section. These events include:
A Supreme Court contempt warning related to environmental inaction
A proposal for extensive post-retirement benefits
A contempt petition before the High Court over administrative delays
An Election Commission appeal involving multiple top positions
A police officer’s harassment and retaliation complaint
All incidents are supported by reliable, independent sources such as The Tribune, Hindustan Times, Economic Times, Indian Express, and court records.
I believe the sentence satisfies the following policies:
WP:V (Verifiability): All claims are supported by third-party, published sources
WP:DUE (Due Weight): The events received sustained public and judicial attention
WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View): The phrasing is factual and non-judgmental
This sentence aims to give readers a balanced and accurate overview of the subject’s public life. There has been some disagreement about its inclusion, so I am opening this RfC to seek broad community consensus. Feedback from uninvolved editors is welcome and appreciated.
This content reflects verifiable past events that received significant public and judicial attention at the time. The goal is not to assess current or future appointments, but to provide a balanced historical account per Wikipedia’s policies.
Note: In recent revisions, nearly the entire "Controversies" section, despite being based on reliable, published sources, has also been removed without clear policy justification. While this RfC specifically concerns the lead sentence, the broader pattern of content removal is affecting the neutrality and completeness of the article. I welcome input on how best to address this if it falls outside the RfC's scope. Thouartmylife (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.
Current version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[b] include sufficient explanatory information.
Proposed version
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material[a]—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[c] sufficient explanatory information should be included.
When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.
Should the lead of the article for the painter Ramon Casas label the subject "Catalan", rather than "Spanish"? While the question may appear minor, it is not, inasmuch as it is an example of low-level disputes that seem to occur regularly regarding Catalan/Spanish questions, e.g., the articles Empúries or Siege of Gerona. Bdushaw (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
