Wikipedia talk:Official names

message: This proposal is a very scoped-down version of User:Andrewa/systematic names, which remains a discussion ground and may never be proposed in its entirety. But I think that this part of it might be helpful.
At the very least, IMO it would be good to have it either approved (as ammended as part of this process of course) or rejected, as part of that ongoing discussion. 
If it's approved, that would be even better of course. Every day some new proposal is posted at WP:RM that ignores this basic implication of WP:NC, and these discussions tend also to be the ones that get quite lengthy. Equally common are requested moves to correct unilateral moves to an official name from the common name, probably all of them made in good faith. Typically, when you look in the article history the unilateral move has an edit summary of moving to the correct name or similar, and was done by a relatively new editor or an anon.
Or, perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation of WP:NC. Finding that out would be equally helpful if so. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming out

message: Please add to this list. Please sign the all postings, as I haven't put a sinebot deny on this page and don't intend to, so it will otherwise add an unsigned template to your post. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussions to which this proposed naming convention is relevant

message: This has been stable for a while. Is it time to put it up to WP:VPP to see if it should be a guideline? It's too useful to dwell in limbo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably is... Although I keep meaning to add more examples. The two main areas in which I've found exceptions so far are aristocratic titles, and firearms. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline?

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) in a nutshell first bullet point reads: Article titles use the scientific or medical name. WP:NC does link to it so I don't know why I didn't see that before, it's a major departure from WP:NC as far as I can see, and probably the most important I've yet seen. 
Some explanation and description of this departure would need to go into this proposal before it became an official guideline. Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Medical terms

message: Interesting move discussions at Talk:Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster. Essentially, the official name has, once at least, been preferred over the admitted common name. The arguments supporting calling the article Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster rather than Big Ben seem to directly challenge WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Ben

message: See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). Its status is a bit vague, it's been labelled as a naming convention for over a year but only the relevant Wikiproject has discussed it and WP:NC doesn't link to it. But it does specify that systematic, rather than common, names should be used. Systematic naming has also prevailed in the naming of the Tomb of Tutekhamen of course. Andrewa (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Egypt

message: See Talk:Erasmus University#Requested move for a very interesting discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus can change

message: There seems insufficient interest to make this a guideline, so I've reclassified it as an essay, following the example of the snowball clause. Comments welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay, at least

message: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Article names and disambiguation. Interesting... it appears to prefer official names. Andrewa (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime and Manga

message: A draft essay outline exists at WP:OFFICIAL (the real name of which is too long for anyone). It doesn't cover anything new and should either be merged here (if anything is salvageable) or simply redirected here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Also the article is trying to say that Official names shouldn't be used. Bread Ninja (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge in alternative essay

message: Wikipedia:Official names is a heavily cited page, especially in requested moves, that is already treated as a guideline. It is a well-written supplement to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, where it is already referred to. The thesis of this page—that official names aren't necessarily the best article titles—is indisputable as a matter of broader consensus. I therefore propose promotion of this essay to guideline status. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to promote to guideline 

message: This aspect of the official name policy still seems to be the single one most often ignored in RM proposals and discussions. So it would be good to make this page more prominent in some way. That seems to have been the motivation for suggesting it as a guideline, but I agree that this would not be an improvement. We are not talking guidelines here; This is policy.
The merge proposal seems to have no sponsor, and it doesn't seem a good idea to me at all. That will just get us back to the situation that existed before the page was created. A step backwards.
But it should be more authoritative than as essay. Perhaps an information page or help page? Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Information and help pages

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:PrankvsPrank/Archive 1#Edit Warring.  Ross Hill Talk to me!  23:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at Talk:PrankvsPrank/Edit Warring

message: That's all.  Thanks.  GregKaye 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the page seems quite clear on this already. (And BTW, it's a project page, not an article.) Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can the article make a clear statement on the Wikipedia definition of official name? 

message: The creation of a new :template:R from official name (currently itself a redirect to a more general template) is underway, with creation of a new corresponding rcat. However there is no reason not to use this template name already. Then when the new template and rcat go live, the redirects already so tagged will automatically get the new more specific message, and be included in the new rcat. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rcat and template 

message: The big question as I see it is, should primary sourcess (or maybe even less) be accepted as sufficient evidence of a change of name, in the face of no other evidence? If unopposed and unsupported nominations are closed as move, that's effectively what we're doing. We will always, for example, have requests from organisations that we reflect their latest corporate image engineering, or for another example that we rebrand a sporting arena to follow its latest corporate sponsorship.
I have personally dealt with many of these in the past, and the official names essay is a reflection of the consensus that I think I see reflected in those discussions and of course in the official policy and guidelines.    
But comments by Paine and Amakuru could be seen as supporting a change. And it may not be a bad thing. I also see a possible consensus in the wider community (reflected in our readership) that the official name is always ipso facto the correct article title. And if there is such a consensus, then the principle of least astonishment would suggest a change of tack by ourselves. But it's a very big change.
Or they may even be part of what I've called the senility of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: But the big question is

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) override WP:COMMONNAME in all cases?, a recently opened RFC which is relevant to the subject of this page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant RFC 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#The endless "fan-capping" problem
How are WP:OFFICIALNAME, etc., failing to get the point across?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on fandom-based over-capitalization 

message: You may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#RfC: Tiebreaker for native vs. translated name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant RfC on official names as tiebreaker 

message: Please see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated. This covers more than the thread name implies, including a general need to update that guideline, which hasn't had substantive changes since 2009.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:NCCORP