Wikipedia talk:Article titles/COMMONNAME sandbox

Feel free to edit any of this as you see fit. It's a sandbox, no one "owns" the proposals.

Current wording "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Proposed wording 1 - specify what types of names would be problematic
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most commonly used one has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:
 * Names of people or groups of people, when the subject has stated a preference for a different name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
 * Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams whose names have been officially changed because the old name was thought to be offensive (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
 * Names that have become used less frequently because they are widely considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)

Proposed wording 2 - point the reader in the direction of where to find problems
"When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems (see the other sections of this page and the specific naming conventions for examples of such problems), it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."

Proposed wording 3 - special case for personal name changes
Add the following phrase to WP:COMMONNAME: "If a person express preference for one name (for example by changing it) and both the old name and the new name are commonly accepted by reliable sources, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose that name even if it is not the most frequently used."

Proposed wording 4 - clarifies existing policy w/o major changes
"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them commonly reported in reliable sources, and the most frequently reported name creates issues with other policies, it may be reasonable to choose one of the other names."

Proposed wording 5 - makes it more explicit under what circumstances we choose a less common name
When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and the most frequently used has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include:
 * Cases where an individual has stated in reliable sources a clear preference to use a different name (for example, Muhammad Ali instead of Cassius Clay, Chaz Bono instead of Chastity Bono)
 * Cases where a government has stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Kolkata instead of Calcutta) This assumes there is no dispute over who has the right to select a given name, since some geographic features have multiple authorities proposing names.
 * Cases where representatives of an ethnic group that can be reasonably assumed to speak on behalf of the group have stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Ktunaxa instead of Kootenai, Nishi people instead of Dafla people)
 * Names that have become used less frequently because they can widely be considered offensive (for example, Chokladboll instead of Negerboll)
 * Names of sports teams, buildings, or other objects where the most common name is widely considered offensive and the owners have proposed a new name (for example, St. John's Red Storm instead of St. John's Redmen)
 * Cases where the most common name is ambiguous, vulgar, or pedantic

If the target name is the result of a recently announced name change, there must be evidence that the intention to change the name is a genuine and enduring one. (then add language here about prioritizing sources after the name change, etc)

Proposed wording 6 - specify what types of names would be problematic + countries + groups
When there are multiple common names for a subject, all of them used frequently in reliable sources, and one of those names has problems, it is permissible (and may be preferable) to choose one of the other names. Examples of names that have problems include, but are not limited to:
 * Former personal names, when the subject has stated a preference for a new name (for example, Cassius Clay, the former name of Muhammad Ali)
 * Names of entities such as buildings and sports teams that have had their names officially changed by their owners (for example, St. John's Redmen, the former name of the St. John's Red Storm)
 * Names that have become used less frequently because they can widely be considered offensive (for example, negerboll, another name for chokladboll)
 * Cases where a government has stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name (for example, Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast)
 * Cases where representatives of an ethnic group that can be reasonably assumed to speak for the majority have stated in reliable sources a clear preference for use of a different name for their group (for example, Ktunaxa instead of Kootenai, Nishi people instead of Dafla people)

Proposed wording 7 - strengthen MOS:IDENTITY to a clear policy that also applies to titles of biographical articles

 * Promote the MOS:IDENTITY guideline (or at least part of it; details to be discussed) to a policy, clarifying its wording to make explicit the intent that in the case of trans* people it applies to names as well as pronouns.
 * In both WP:AT and WP:Naming conventions (people), say that for biographical articles, the resulting IDENTITY policy will apply also to names used as article titles. The title of a biographical article should therefore be consistent with the primary name used in its content. If there is an exceptional reason not to use any particular name in the title, that also applies to the content and vice versa.
 * If a subject uses more than one name for themself among which they have specified no preference, this policy does not require any particular choice. However, the name decided on should be consistent between title and content. (This does not mean that all parts of a name need be used in any particular instance.)
 * In deciding names to be used for the subject of a biographical article, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are to be considered relevant to the question of what name(s) the subject uses for themself, and only that. There are to be no popularity contests attempting to decide how many sources refer to the subject by one name vs another, unless the subject has indicated no preference.
 * The above changes apply to biographical articles of all living people. They also apply to biographical articles of people who have died (or are missing presumed dead) provided that: a) there is reliable evidence of the name they used for themself, and b) that name is a name by which they have been commonly known. ("Commonly" here does not mean that there is any minimum threshold for how well they need to have been known by that name, or for how long.)
 * For other articles, adopt proposal 6 above.
 * In cases where a person has changed their name and an article is referring to a past point in their life, this proposal does not specify whether they should be referred to with their old or new name, except in the following case: no person shall be "outed" as transgender by use of an old name, or otherwise, unless the fact that they are transgender is already publically known, and is considered relevant to the article. (Other cases are up for discussion.)