Wikipedia talk:Article titles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gay or Gay?[edit]

Should the title of the Gay article be italicized? I italicized it, based on my understanding of the guidelines. Another editor reverted my change, saying the italicization did not look right to me. Other input may be valuable.

MOS:WORDSASWORDS says Use italics when writing about words as words. MOS:LEADSENTENCE says For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term [in the lead sentence] to indicate the use–mention distinction. WP:ITALICTITLE says Use italics [for the title] when italics would be used in running text. The Gay article is about the term itself, and the term is italicized in the article lead and body.

I am alerting the Gay talk page to this discussion. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I de-italiced, but considering the reasons not to. I see this in long-view, the word is weighted since its former usage [for which there is no adequate synonym], and I do not see the sexuality of the term as special usage. ~ cygnis insignis 12:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Never mind. The hat-note says "This article is about gay as an English-language term", which seems clear enough, and to bring it firmly under MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
My first reaction would also be "doesn't look quite right", but I can't fault the reasoning for it. Looking at articles in Category:English words, there are many that use italic titles, e.g. Groovy, Folx (term), Femme. They might even be the majority. So yeah, I see no reason not to italicize. Colin M (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand the logic, but I wouldn't italicize the title. I agree with the above sentiments that it just doesn't look right. The italicized title rule is basically so that the title of things that are always italicized (such as book titles or movie titles) look right aesthetically. The term "gay" isn't always italicized, and there isn't any context within a one-word title that signifies that it should be italicized, as italicizing a word as a word is context specific within a sentence itself. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS:WORDSASWORDS is nothing to do with titles of works, nor about words that are normally italicised (as foreign etc). It's to show it's an article about the word, not the thing(s) the word means. An article called plain "Gay" might begin "A gay is a male homosexual ....". But this is not that article. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about MOS:WORDSASWORDS. I was talking about WP:ITALICTITLE. Every example given at WP:ITALICTITLE are words that are always italicized in running text (books, ships, etc.). The word "gay" is not always italicized when in running text, so I think it's a misuse of WP:ITALICTITLE to apply it to this situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, even if you ignore ITALICTITLE, surely MOS:WORDSASWORDS applies to titles just as it does anywhere else? And since the article is about a term, not a concept, I feel like the title also refers to the term, rather than the concept. *Shrug*. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Ah, I see WORDSASWORDS has been updated in light of this dispute. Well, if that's the consensus that's fine by me. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would not italicise the title but I would italicise the first sentence: "Gay is a term primarily used ..." Re: running text, I'd interpret that as whether italics appear when the word is used to refer to the concept rather than the word itself. For instance: "In this film, John Doe portrayed the gay writer whose last work was criticised for its deus ex machina ending." DaßWölf 06:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We should not italicize titles of things that would not be italicized in running text. Red Slash 23:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That wording is ambiguous. In an article that's about a word or phrase, the term would be italicized in the running text in that specific article, so the guideline arguably applies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • After some searching, I found this discussion from 2017 about adding words-as-words to the list of cases where italics would be used in titles. It was largely opposed, and is probably the best evidence available for consensus being against this practice (though the idea of adding the opposite advice to the guideline - i.e. to not italicize the titles of articles on words - also failed to get consensus in that discussion). The strongest evidence in the opposite direction is the empirical fact that many (maybe even a narrow majority) of the articles in Category:English words currently use italic titles. I also found a few other small related discussions on article talk pages here, and here. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Colin M: Thanks for that find; I participated in that discussion but almost forgot about it. At that time, my research showed that examining the Category:Interjections or Category:English words, we can see that articles using [italic title] are few and far between but now the situation has apparently changed. On a quick skim, most of those {{italic title}}s were relatively recent additions. For example, Sangdeboeuf italicized As the crow flies in Feb 2018 citing MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and I disagree with that rationale: without a context, an italic title strongly suggests that the topic is a book or film title. I agree with the majority that italicizing such titles is taking it too far, and I continue to advocate that a short sentence should be added to WP:ITALICTITLE to discourage that. No such user (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think italics necessarily suggest a book or film title. (I doubt anyone thinks that Rhododendron or Queen Elizabeth 2 refer to artistic or literary works when viewed in context.) It's helpful to be able to know at a glance whether an article is about the term(s) mentioned in the title, or whether the term(s) are being used to refer to something else. (As if, say, As the crow flies were a description of actual crows in flight.) While not perfect, the established use of italics to designate words-as-words makes this a straightforward tool for doing just that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    "As the crow flies" is hardly a name of a genus or a ship; the first association for me is a work title (cf. As the World Turns). The key difference here is that italics are always used when referring to works, ships and taxonomic genera, but not always when referring to words or phrases: they are only used in running text for the purpose of use-mention distinction. Besides, in our articles about words and phrases, the use-mention distinction is not always straightforward, as the exposition often shifts between the two.
    Obviously, there is not a single "right" answer but, if we want to establish a consistent rule, it seems that majority in this RFC and the 2017 discussion disagrees with your interpretation. No such user (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The fact that As the crow flies is in sentence case rather than title case seems like it would reduce confusion about it being the title of a work (though this doesn't help for single-word titles like Gay). Colin M (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right. It shouldn't be italicised at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Why not? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Of course As the crow flies is not a genus or a ship. But any objections on those grounds are completely circular, since the very policy we're talking about is the one that says to italicize those titles. And we don't decide issues on a simple majority/minority vote. Granted that the use-mention distinction is not always clear in articles, but it should be fairly easy to determine case by case which one should be the main topic of any article. In the case of Gay, the italics are an immediate indication that the word is not being used in the normal sense (which I would guess is the rationale for their use in artistic/literary titles as well). They visually set the word apart. Without italics, Gay seems like it could easily be mistaken at first for an article about gayness, i.e. homosexuality, rather than the word itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support the use of italics for this particular article, for the reasons I outlined above and in the previous discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not taking a position on the technical correctness, but the italics give it a queer look. EEng 06:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe a poor choice of words? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Tennel Cheshire proof.png
    • Hard to believe I came up with that completely by accident, isn't it? EEng 22:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      Tsk, tsk, dear EEng. You know better than to explain magic, or irony. Takes all the fun out of it. You have to rely on others chortling in their glee, even if you can't see them because they're invisible; all but their smile. Mathglot (smile) 23:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think it's hetero-dox. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. No need to italicise whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The article should be italicized, since the guidelines support it. WanderingWanda basically said it all in their intro paragraph, along with the two quotes about why it should be italicized. As a further indication, Sangdeboeuf gave a logical argument for why italics are used for this purpose, namely it gives an immediate indication that the article is not about what you might think (the concept) but about something else (the word); putting it another way, it flags which side of the use-mention distinction you are on. Most of the objections to italicization raised above seem to me to be in the nature of "it just looks funny", which I get. However, the guidelines all back the use of italics.

So let me see if I can address the "looks funny" aspect. When we look at Wiktionary (or a printed dictionary), the headwords are not italicized. Why not? Because in a dictionary; there is no need to flag the entry as being "about a word", every entry in a dictionary is about a word. Conversely, articles in printed encyclopedias are about concepts, not words. They are not italicized, either. At Wikipedia, nearly every article is about a concept; but here and there, when a word itself rises to the notability required for an encyclopedic topic, then the word may have an article about it, and in those cases, the headword is italicized per MOS:WAW, and as Wanda quoted above, the article title follows suit. The reason for the "looks funny", imho, is this: we are not used to seeing italicized words in printed encyclopedias. Part of the reason for that, is that just like at Wikipedia, there are very few, or no entries about a word in printed encyclopedias. (I've been glancing through my Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, and can find no italicized headwords at all; the entry for laissez faire is not capitalized; titles of foreign works are rendered in English. The How to Use section in the front explains in the first sentence: "All articles are arranged alphabetically, with article heads in boldface." So, no exceptions. They use small caps where Wikipedia would use hyperlinks, and italics for titles of works (in the article body, not in the headword). Even if printed encyclopedias do not have articles about words, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not limited by print considerations, and we do have a few articles about words. (Just like we have a few articles that don't start with a capital letter, or that have internal punctuation.)

The "looks funny" feeling we get, probably comes from the fact that we're just not used to it, as part of the legacy from print encyclopedias and dictionaries: neither one italicizes headwords, because they don't have to. But we're not limited in the way a print encyclopedia is, and there is no reason not to follow the guidelines about how they should appear in Wikipeida when we do have the rare article about a word. In fact, that "looks funny" feeling is an aid to the viewer of the article, as Sangdeboeuf said, to know at a glance that there is something different going on here. (Hopefully, someone would add a hatnote about its use as a term, but the italic title is the starting point, and what the viewer will see first.) The italic title in the rare few articles about words already conforms to existing guidelines. There's no reason to limit the online encyclopedia exclusively to concept articles. When the article is about a word, it needs to be italicized. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Titles which are foreign-language work of art tiles or organization names[edit]

It looks like we do not have guidelines of what to do with titles which do not have known or commonly accepted English translations.


Until now I moved such titles into English. But recently user:Piotrus pointed out that I may be not right. Please let us formulate a uniform guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as works of visual art are concerned WP:VAMOS covers this (normally, use English). Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Foreign language titles are generally only to be used if they are used by most art historians or critics writing in English. It sounds as if the above works (except perhaps ABC of Love) wouldn't be referred to by English titles. (And surely that redirect should be called WP:LETSGO...) Certes (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ho ho! I'm not sure about that - for paintings etc it's about what writers in English call the work, if there are any. And in visual art criticism generally the tendency is to translate titles, whereas for books and films this very often only comes when somebody has translated/dubbed etc the work, clearly much more work and less common. But if there were critical/news writing using an English title, I'd say use that. But for example Category:Tamil-language films shows we normally use the title in Tamil for them, which I think is typical for Indian films. If there's been a dubbed/subtitled release in English it could be different, or if the title is clearly the local version of say a novel with a clear English title that the film adapts. But for Category:Polish science fiction novels we mostly seem to use English, even where no English translation has been published. Johnbod (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). I think the issue here is that many of such works have almost no coverage in English, and sometimes there's just a mix of references in social media, blogs, etc. This is related to the move of the book now under Black Oceans. There are a few references using it in English, but Polish title is also used by English sources ex [1]. Goodreads uses original names until an official translation is released ([2]). It is less of an issue in this case, given that English title is very easy, but some other books, where there are multiple ways of translating the title, should IMHO be left alone until there's an official translation (I wouldn't touch Pieprzony los Kataryniarza with a 10-foot pole...). Final thought: years ago I created a page for a book under a title I thought would be correct (Times of Anger), then the official translation chose Times of Contempt (better) [3]. This taught me to be careful and wait for the official translation... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This makes sense. I have found a more relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). It must be expanded with what was scattered over other guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). Also, the section Wikipedia:Article_titles#English-language_titles must be:

Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The last is not very relevant - it's about titles in the sense of the names of articles, not titles of works. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Please clarify what is "last". This discussion is about titles of works used as article titles. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article_titles#English-language_titles - and that isn't about titles of works used as article titles. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's even worse than I thought. It starts with On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language, which is plain false. Also it says In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader, which is dubious in view of the current discussion. Therefore I am replacing my suggestion below. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


  • Create new section "Language of article titles".
  • Turn "English-language titles" into its subsection and edit it to fix inconsistencies. For example, the first two sentences must be replaced with: If the article title is in the English language, it must be remembered that <...>
  • Add section "Other languages" with summary of all written elsewhere and add links to exceptions, if any.

Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is no common English translation then we don't invent one but use the title in the original language. Simple as that. Same with any other article title on Wikipedia. Editors are too keen on translating foreign titles even if there is no common English-language title, and given this is often done by editors whose native language is not English it has resulted in some bizarre English constructions. It's not our function to tell the world what we think something should be called; only what it is called. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Not so simple as that. To translate "Oceany" into "Oceans" does not require big language guru and may want to use WP:COMMONSENSE. Therefore my point is we have to set up a policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Why do we "have to set up a policy"? Why should we add yet another WP:CREEPy rule to turn the English Wikipedia into an ever-more bureaucratic place, in violation of WP:NOTBURO? Don't you think that most individual cases could be sorted out by editors using their own common sense? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Because (a) some subpolicies already have such rules (b) commonsense discussions in talk page is waste of time (c) there are trivial and nontrivial situations (d) burocracy has both positive and negative sides. In this particular case I dont see how it can be abused, but it will be definitely helpful per item b. (e) We dont have to write 100% foolproof, touch only major bases, and expand if necessary. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My problem with translating non-English names which have no WP:RS English equivalent is that it's WP:OR. Suppose that À la recherche du temps perdu had never been translated into English: would we title the article In Search of Lost Time (as we do, in line with a RS); or In Search of Wasted Time (an alternative meaning, lost in translation)? I say, stick with the original language unless there's a sound justification for translating.
Similar arguments apply to the names of institutions and so on. How dare we tell them what their name should be? Narky Blert (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Unlike literary title, organization names are mostly plain sentences, and I don't see why we should not dare. If you say this is original research, I say we still translate it in the article body, per common sense, for the article to be informative. "Polska Konferencja z Dejów Dawnych" - every reader will ask "FTF this means". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Staszek that we should better go with translation in non-controversial cases, lest we astonish the readess. I think that people are overusing the WP:NOR argument interpreting that it prevents any kind of editors' creative expression, while its scope is expressly limited to facts, allegations, and ideas, and I don't think translations fit there. Yeah, we should use attested translations where they exist, and refrain from translations of tricky ones (while we're at organizations, political party names can be really challenging), but I wouldn't support a blanket ban on editor-generated translations. (But no, I don't think the approach be codified in policy). No such user (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that many, or most, non-English titles for things other than creative works pose no problem, and should be translated: there will be a clear word-for-word English equivalent. Ambiguities like de:Kloster (which may mean abbey, monastery or priory) can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, things like fr:château and de:Schloss can be trickier. 'Castle' is the obvious, and the correct, translation for something which started off as a fortified building; but would be wrong for, say, a C18 French or German country house.
I haven't come across that political party problem. However, I have come across a couple of academic institutions where it wasn't at all clear what the English version should be. Narky Blert (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: See a recent case at Talk:Apulia First of All, and I've seen several similar ones: a regional or recently formed party without much English-language coverage, and with a catchy or double-meaning name in the original language (FWIW, I would probably have !voted for the original La Puglia prima di tutto in that case if I had had a chance, virtually no English coverage). No such user (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@No such user: One which worries me somewhat is Ore Mountains, a name I've never seen outside WP. I've known of them as the Erzgebirge for 50 years. The search wouldn't be easy, but it is possible that 'Ore Mountains' may have been popularised in, or even entered into, English usage from WP; which would for me be a problem. Narky Blert (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's fixable: Talk:Ore Mountains#Requested_move_20_September_2019. No such user (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of cases where the title of an article on animal is a "common" name invented by Wikipedians. This was discussed explicitly at Talk:Psammoperca waigiensis and Talk:Mbu pufferfish. Neither article is currently at the title discussed on the talk page, although "Mbu pufferfish" may also be a name invented on Wikipedia (it isn't very commonly used, and is not the most commonly used vernacular name for this fish). There are other cases of this; I don't bother fixing them because so many Wikipedians are believe that the term of art "common name" in biology is the same thing as the Wikipedia term of art "COMMONNAME". Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
But I fail to see why we should translate words such as Château or Schloss at all when it is much commoner English-language practice now to retain these in the original language. To me it seems extremely old-fashioned to do so unless there is a very well-established usage of "castle" (or whatever) for a particular building. I don't know whether this is a bit of an ENGVAR thing, as I've noticed that Americans tend to prefer translating more than we Brits do (and strangely, some of the most enthusiastic translators on Wikipedia are non-native-English-speakers), but it seems completely unnecessary. Most modern guidebooks that I've seen don't do it any more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I usually don't translate. See e.g. Schloss Zweibrücken, Kellereischloss, Binnenvaartmuseum and Salto de Roldán. Narky Blert (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think Schloss, especially for those in cities, is translated into English much more than Château. See eg Category:Castles in the Harz vs Category:Castles in Nouvelle-Aquitaine. Then there's Category:Castles in Switzerland and Category:Castles in Utrecht (province) (mostly "castles"), Category:Castles in Stockholm County (castle & other English terms, Category:Castles in Armenia (mostly "fortress"), and so on. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Narky Blert: Absolutely agree. We should never translate any article title unless there are substantial reliable English-language sources that do so. I cannot understand why some editors have an obsession with doing this. It is OR and it is not what WP:UE mandates. There's nothing wrong with providing a translation in the article text, but not in the title itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a useful discussion. An additional point favoring non-translation is that it is a not-so-rare practice even in "official" English translations: Al Jazeera rather than The Island, Al Fath, Amu Darya rather than River Amu, Schloss Allner (Allner Castle) etc. Keeping in mind that several subpolicies do have rules about article titles, I will try and summarize the discussion into a (not too prescriptive/proscriptive) suggestion about the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Change section title from: Use commonly recognizable names, to use: Use correct names[edit]

Background: Over at the BFR (rocket) page, the wrong name has been in use for nearly a year, because of misunderstanding of what wp:commonname is. If we renamed that section to use right name or use correct name, people would be less apt to just read the label and assume that is what policy is. Also if we could somehow emphasize the name change portion that would be great. Currently this text is used:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[5] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

How about changing it to:

Wikipedia does not always use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). An exception to this is when an official name change has occurred then weight will be given to names used by reliable sources after the name change. Names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[5] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.

What do you think?   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree Wikipedia should generally use the correct name even it its not "official". We should not use abbreviated/nicknames except for cases when they are widely accepted as correct by reliable sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It still means common name. We use correct common names, not incorrect common ones or correct uncommon ones. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Except if you are talking about BFR (rocket) which is incorrect common name? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand your comment. I am saying do not use incorrect common names. How is that not clear? DrKay (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think your original statement is not clear? You said we do not use incorrect common names and I gave you an example where incorrect common name is used. How is that not clear? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I thought you didn't want to use BFR (rocket). I must have misunderstood. DrKay (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposal is completely incomprehensible. BFR was the official name of the rocket and is therefore correct in any normal definition of the word. DrKay (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "was" the official name , but a new name was announced the prior year and all reputable sources used the new name of starship. The article title failed to follow the name change. Therefore is incorrect per policy. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Why have you reinserted "[5]"? Why is there a hanging "</ref>" in the middle of the text? Why did you remove my addition of the word "correct"? I do not understand why you are opposing my summary "We use correct common names, not incorrect common ones or correct uncommon ones" when any reasonable person would assume that was your own view? The links in the sections "Deciding on an article title" and "Name changes" were obviously broken by the change in section heading. Please restore the original text from 26 September while the discussion is in progress. DrKay (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted to the status quo ante bellum. oknazevad (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – COMMONNAME is flawed if it trumps common sense and helps spread misnomers. It should only be used to choose between correct names, not to reinforce false or outdated titles. Proposal may need improvement and copy editing. But I support in principle and, in actuality, this is already how we are working as indicated by North Macedonia, or how we treat company rebranding, or how we treat people who changed their name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NAMECHANGES already exists. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Why does WP:NAMECHANGES existing lead to oppose? The issue is that people reference wp:commonname and interpret that literally. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Because we don't need to change one guildeline when the other already exists that does exactly what the proposed changes would do. We don't need to change COMMONNAME when all you needed to do was point to NAMECHANGES. Just because you can't persuasively argue your position does not mean we need to change a long-standing, widely supported guideline. Also, do not make a change to the guideline again while the matter is under discussion. Doing such will result in you being blocked. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. COMMONNAME is probably the single most important principle of article naming, reflecting the usage in sources, and tying in with the concept of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. There is absolutely no benefit for readers in switching to a "correct name" concept, (which I presume is a variant of saying we should use official names, something we've always rejected). As noted above, we already have provision for the case where subjects change name, in the form of NAMECHANGES. But again, the goal is to reflect changes in use by reliable sources, not changes in official name. If there's an issue with the naming of BFR, and you think sources are now using a different name, then start an RM and make the case there. But don't come tinkering with long-standing policy just to effect a move which has failed to gain consensus. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All already covered. If an official name change has occurred then we do already usually take this fact into consideration at RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. “Correct name” is, depending on the situation, either trivial or far mare subjective than the OP seems to think. When correct name is not trivial, when there are arguments and different perspectives on “correct”, that is exactly when COMMONNAME, pointing to reliable sources, serves its purpose. Of course correct names should be used. That’s a wikt:motherhood statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As SmokeyJoe notes, the issue would be "whose correct name?" Commonness is subject to some degree of verification, and hence has some degree of objectivity, but in many areas "correctness" is disputed. (Anyone who has articles on their watchlist including names like "Tibet", "Taiwan", "Kashmir", "Palestine" or "Israel" won't be in any doubt about this). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As an interesting note, can one really say that "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" is actually the official name for Rhode Island? in the source cited for that, in the constitution it appears 3x (1 of which "state" appears in lower case) but all census data, maps and primary sources (eg the tourist website) just use "Rhode Island" (a "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" search only returns 3 results), Encyclopædia Britannica says "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" is its official name though. I'd say that "Rhode Island" is the official name of the state while "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" is its official description similar to the Republic of Ireland and many other countries. Its just that ironically because of the ambiguity with the island of Ireland it needed to clarify its name. Talk:United States/FAQ points out The country's name is not explicitly defined as such in the Constitution or in the law. The words "United States of America" only appear three times in the Constitution. "United States" appears 51 times by itself, including in the presidential oath or affirmation. The phrase "of America" is arguably just a prepositional phrase that describes the location of the United States and is not actually part of the country's name so I'd say that that would apply to Rhode Island to its just that the exact phrase "United States of America" is actually common compared to many others. In any case I don't think the government and people of Rhode Island would want the article at State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations anyway so I'd say the current title is (IMO) the official name as well as the one preferred by primary sources etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Adi Laufitu Malani#Requested move 3 October 2019[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adi Laufitu Malani#Requested move 3 October 2019. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


There is a discussion at Talk:Luccombe, Isle of Wight#Requested move 20 September 2019 where the Isle of Wight one is called "Luccombe Village" but while the Somerset one is a village it has no indication its called "Luccombe Village". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)