Battle of Old Fort Wayne

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Museum of Civilization → Canadian Museum of History – The Canadian government officially changed the name of the institution on December 12, 2013. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, as nominator. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Proper name. Curious but why didn't you just move it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't. The redirect is tagged. I could have asked an Admin to move it, but it occurred to me that someone could potentially take issue with the name change, given that the museum has yet to shift over its website, etc. I thought it best to be overly cautious and avoid the type of dispute that occurred when the Bay changed its name to Hudson's Bay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Makes sense. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No valid rationale. Please see WP:AT for valid reasons for a rename, and WP:official names for an explanation as to why the particular arguments above are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's just a matter of time until they change their branding etc. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps, but this argument seems to go against long established principles. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You've misconstrued long established principles, as well as the comment above, for reasons set out below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, see below. Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

WP:BALL is also relevant here. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! There are official announcements and press releases. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BALL suggestion is strange, given the circumstances, as none of this is speculative in the least.

WP:OFFICIALNAMES isn't really on point either. This isn't a case where we have an official, statutory name that differs from the commonly-used by the general public. The name change has been a highly-publicized process. As is evident from the press release cited in the article, the museum is already referring to itself the Museum of History. The media has not only extensively covered the name change issue over the past year, but it now also seems to be referring to the institution by the new Museum of History monicker in articles that have nothing to do with the name change itself (see, for example, here, here and here). Other government departments are now referring to the museum by its new name (for example, here), many of the museum's partners seem to be using the new name (example), and the museum has even switched over its Facebook page to the new name. As the article states, the museum will continue switching everything over to its new name over the next few months. It's a gradual process, and there is no single switchover date to which we could tie an article rename. Given that the name change has occurred, that it is well known, that the implementation of the change is well underway and that usage has clearly already shifted, it seems quite appropriate for the article name to be changed now, with appropriate references to the former name in the article lead. Andrewa did not provide any details as to why he thinks there are no "valid reasons for a rename", but there does not appear to be anything in WP:AT that would preclude this move. This does not give rise to the concerns set out at WP:TITLECHANGES, and we are following the process set out in that section of policy. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The official adoption of the name is not speculative, see below. But since I suggested this, another contributor has said It's just a matter of time until they change their branding etc, which is exactly the sort of argument that WP:BALL urges us to avoid. The tenor of the earlier argument is much the same, but that's a concrete example. So ironically I was even perhaps prophetic. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the procedures are being followed. But on the evidence so far presented, the move is has not been justified and so should not occur. This may just be because the evidence given misses the point. Examples are not enough, as they may be isolated. We need evidence of general acceptance. You say usage has clearly already shifted, but why are you so confident of this? You say This isn't a case where we have an official, statutory name that differs from the commonly-used by the general public. Evidence? All we need is the evidence, and the move should then proceed. But we don't have it, and it's up to the proponents of the move to provide it.

And we have the situation that not even all of the official website is changed, and that many of the museum's partners seem to be using the new name, which indicates also that some are not. This surely will lead to other people continuing to use the old name? How many? We at least need to ask and answer the question.

Agree that the official name change is not speculation. Again, I never said it was. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't mean to suggest that it was speculative, then the bald reference to WP:BALL wasn't that helpful.

Before I respond more in depth, I ask that you please not reformat my comments, split my comments in ways that I had not intended so they no longer flow, or insert comments within my previous comments such that some my comments appear to have no signature. If you are responding to something at the start of my previous comments, please simply indicate that is the case without editing someone else's comments. Obviously feel free to insert comments between separately signed comments. I have restored my comments to how they originally read. Thanks.

As for the points you've raised:

WP:BALL - Well, no, not prophetic, since there was nothing to suggest that this was a situation to which WP:BALL applied. As for comments subsequent to your suggestion that WP:BALL applies, please have some good faith and assume an experienced editor like User:Secondarywaltz is well aware of the problems of WP:BALL-type assertions, especially since he was careful to make clear that he was not speculating by referring to the press releases which made clear that the museum is already referring to itself by the new name and would complete the transition in a few months (and, being Canadian, he is undoubtedly personally well aware of this well-publicized change). Given the context and his full comments, Secondarywaltz was hardly suggesting that "someday the name might change" (the type of situation where WP:BALL would apply), but rather that it was just a matter of time till the museum completes switching everything over (and, as discussed above, that process is well underway). So, WP:BALL doesn't apply, either in the context of when you made the suggestion, or in light of Secondarywaltz's subsequent comment.

As for your other suggestion, there is plenty of evidence that the name change reflects popular usage. The museum has now even switched over its Twitter account. The examples provided are not isolated (they've converted their entire social media presence to the new name is isolated evidence???), and there is plenty of evidence of general acceptance. There is no hard date at which the museum is switching everything over, but they are clearly progressing rapidly. This is a situation of a well-publicized and reported name changed, which became official almost a month ago, with the museum now referring to itself by the new name and having already switched over significant aspects of its public branding, with numerous examples of the media, government and other institutions using the new name. Your comments suggest an unreasonable threshold, unsupported by any guideline, where we would effectively need to conduct opinion polling every time we wanted to switch an article title. We don't need to prove that the entire world has adopted the new name (for any name change for any institution, some people will continue to use the old name for years after the fact). In this case, we have shown clear evidence of general acceptance. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll obey your request, although it seems unnecessary and makes it impossible to reply in detail to this, which contains many false statements and misunderstandings.

So let's just take your first point. The key is that I said that the claim of popular adoption of the new name was speculative, not the claim of its official announcement. Obviously I didn't say it clearly enough. Do you see the difference now? Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that there have been no press releases, nor that there's no usage of the new name. The question is, has this new name come into popular usage? Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly more than just press releases. And it has quite clearly come into popular usage, given the demonstrated usage by the museum, the media, government and third parties.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the evidence so far presented supports that it has quite clearly come into popular usage at all. But that's the right way to argue. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name change is official from both the government of Canada and the museum itself (I added a link in the article to confirm). It is just a matter of time before it will come into common usage. Wikipedia should be using the correct name. I suggest, move immediately. There is no mechanism to decide when the new official name will become commonplace. Dger (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree, as we should be generally using the common name rather than deferring to an official name simply because it is official (see policy and guideline references in the discussion above). But for the reasons out above, the official name here is already commonplace. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you determine when does a name become commonplace after its official name changes? For Wikipedia to be accurate it should reflect the correct and currect names of institutions. There is no mechanism to poll the population to determine which is the current popular name. You make not like the change but the government of Canada decides the names of its institutions. Personally, I am against the name change but you can't fight the reality of this situation. Dger (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always easy. But that's the policy, and you can indeed fight the reality of this situation (the reality of the policy, I mean) and that's the tenor of much of the above, but it's probably not the best way forward. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:pob||

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Museum of History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050330171045/http://www.civilization.ca:80/societe/annrpt95/rp2ree.html to http://www.civilization.ca/societe/annrpt95/rp2ree.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]