Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (events) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:NCE

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#RfC_on_date_ranges_in_meteorological_event_titles has an RfC

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather#RfC_on_date_ranges_in_meteorological_event_titles has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does "generally accepted" in WP:NCENPOV refer to acceptance by reliable sources or editors

I'm having a discussion with Rafe87 at Talk:Rafah aid distribution incidents over whether the events should be called "massacres". One of the subpoints is what the second point of NCENPOV means. Currently, our policy says:

If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre"

1. My understanding is that "generally accepted" refers to acceptance by most reliable sources. That means avoiding "massacre" if it isn't agreed on by reliable sources per WP:POVTITLE.
2. Rafe87's understanding appears to be that "generally accepted" refers to acceptance by Wikipedia editors. Quoting: These massacres don't have a common name in reliable sources... So we're at liberty to describe them as massacre, not least because that's the most accurate and brief descriptor of these "incidents."[1]

I believe 1 is correct but I'm seeking a third opinion since this often comes up in requested moves. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, if 1 were the case, then there would be a Common Name in reliable sources, rendering the point of clarifying the naming policy moot. Rafe87 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My take… it is indeed referring to source usage and not editorial opinion. To explain: While the sources might not use the word “massacre” as a common NAME for the event, they might regularly DESCRIBE the event as being a massacre. In such situations, it is acceptable for us to use “massacre” in our article title. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely does not refer to Wikipedia editors alone. Whether it refers to the general public or reliable sources is debatable. I would err on the side of it being reliable sources - because otherwise, it would violate POVTITLE as you point out. I'll comment on the talk page further. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision § Requested move 4 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision § Requested move 4 July 2025. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:2025 New York City shooting § Requested move 29 July 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2025 New York City shooting § Requested move 29 July 2025. There is some disagreement over the chosen name for the "where" of WP:NCWWW. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]