steve v wrote:
The Iraq War article has recently been formed to consolodate the term under something a bit more substantive than a disambiguation. There remains the issue of unnecessary dating of events, where such events are uniquely enough referenced and titled to warrant more common terms. There are thousands of cases where we use the common term instead of a more official term, so why then is there a persistence in using a unique standard using titles prefaced with a date?
The problem is that it isn't always agreed when something is "uniquely enough referenced and titled to warrant more common terms", especially taking a historical view. Many news organizations today speak of the "London terrorist attacks", for example, but obviously Wikipedia needs to use a more specific article title since there have been multiple London terrorist attacks over the years.
-Mark