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