User:Anþony/Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything
 | This page in a nutshell: In disputes over what to name an article, the "official" name of the subject from related sources is completely irrelevant. If the Wikipedia naming conventions do not provide a clear answer, articles should use the most common name of the subject that will be clearly recognized. |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This essay is a work in progress. Essentially, it will be my interpretation of the WP:UCN guideline to specifically retort to arguments that frequently appear on WP:RM. If you agree with the sentiment of this essay, feel free to add to it, but please do not compromise its spirit. If you disagree, feel free to create Wikipedia:Wikipedia should care about the official name of some things.
Some points for further elaboration:
- "Official" sources do not control the name of a subject, even if they created it or hold trademarks on it. Names and language are a fluid development of the people who use it.
- The argument for "official" names has no support in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. First and foremost, Wikipedia is meant to be easy to use and understand, which is why we use common names instead.
- Determining the "official" name of many subjects is impossible, even when it appears clear-cut. If Wikipedia did rely on "official" names, debate would quickly devolve into endless bickering over which name is more official.
- Some groups attempt to rebrand themselves or their properties using loaded language to push an agenda or obscure unfavorable details. In the spirit of NPOV, we should describe the world as it is, rather than as any one group wishes it to be.