Talk:Naming Commission

Name is way too long

I'm keeping an eye on this one. As soon as a shorter WP:COMMONNAME develops in committee notes and the media, which I'm sure it will, I will be renaming this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be moved from this title ASAP, IMO, to "Confederate naming commission" or "Confederate name commission" or something, until a common name emerges. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Confederate naming commission" incorrect title

Featous. Hello friend. I notice you recently renamed this article to "Confederate naming commission". There are two issues with this title. 1) It is not capitalized. Proper nouns such as the names of commissions are capitalized. Examples: European Commission, Finance Commission, National Human Rights Commission of India, Trilateral Commission, Brundtland Commission. 2) This name (without the word "base") is not used anywhere. It has zero results on Google. [1]. I would encourage you to self-revert and move this page back to "Confederate Base Naming Commission", which is how it is written in this defense.gov announcement. ... will serve on what's commonly called the Confederate Base Naming Commission. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I respectfully disagree. The original (long) name of the article is a proper noun, and therefore capitalized. Anything else is simply a descriptive nickname and should not be capitalized, e.g. Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church. Also, the Commission covers many more "items" than bases, as indicated by items listed in the article, so "Confederate base naming commission" is also inaccurate. Levivich correctly used lower case in his suggestions above.

I would not be averse to following a consensus, but this article was moved so early that Google is now filled with sources just repeating the Wikipedia title. If we're not going to wait until a consensus arrives naturally outside the wiki, let's just keep it at a title that is descriptive. Cheers, Featous (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither Confederate naming commission and Confederate Base Naming Commission imply name removal and "Confederate Base Naming Commission" is too restrictive since the act is not just restricted to army bases and not just names, but includes navy ships and the use of Confederate Battle Flag in insignias, aircraft nose art, etc. Too bad there is no equivalent to either Denazification or Decommunization. Another idea to get a short name by looking at the article Presidential Commission (United States) for examples, most of which uses the name of commission's chairman, such as the Warren Commission, the Hoover Commission or the Christopher Commission. Another alternative could be considered is the "Commission for the Removal of Confederate Names and Symbols" or "Commission for the removal of Confederate names". Or anything else that implies name/symbol removal. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Confederate naming commission → Confederate Base Naming Commission – This article was recently renamed to "Confederate naming commission". There are two issues with this title. 1) It is not capitalized. Proper nouns such as the names of commissions are capitalized. Examples: European Commission, Finance Commission, National Human Rights Commission of India, Trilateral Commission, Brundtland Commission. 2) This name (without the word "base") is not used anywhere. It has zero results on Google. [2]. I propose that we move it back to its previous title and capitalization of "Confederate Base Naming Commission", which is how it is written in this defense.gov announcement. ... will serve on what's commonly called the Confederate Base Naming Commission. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. OK, if you're just going to ignore my reasoning above, let's !vote... First, there is no official title for an entity called "Confederate Base Naming Commission", so it's not a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized. Second, there is no unofficial consensus on any shortened name for the Commission on the Naming of Items of the Department of Defense that Commemorate the Confederate States of America or Any Person Who Served Voluntarily with the Confederate States of America, which is where this article was created. There has been one source, cited above, that asserts that it is "commonly called the Confederate Base Naming Commission", but no indications at the time that this was true. There are probably more now since the page was moved to that title long enough to become an online point of reference. In the past two weeks, there's been a Washington Times piece mocking how even the acronym is unwieldy, and both the Washington Post and The Hill just described the Commission rather than attempt to name it. Third, including "Base" in "Confederate Base Naming Commission" is misleading reductive as the Commission's authority is much wider than base names, as the article makes clear. Therefore, the best solution if we can't live with the official name is to follow the practice used by credible news organizations and just use a descriptive title. "Confederate naming commission" is descriptive, aka not a proper noun and not capitalized; has the benefit of using words in the actual official name; and is not misleading about the remit of the Commission by implying it is only about bases. - Featous (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least for now. The DOD only started calling it "Confederate Base Naming Commission" last month; I see more sources not using that name than sources using it; and it seems all the sources point out that it's not just bases being renamed. I think keeping it at the generic, lowercase title, for now, is best, until such time as a clear common name emerges. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Section 370 of the NDAA is not restricted to just U.S. Army bases but also includes the use of names of U.S. naval ships commemorating Confederate army victories, buildings at two American military academies that honor alumni who rejected their U.S. military oaths to serve an enemy armed forces, display of campaign streamers by U.S. Army National Guard units that commemorate Confederate victories over the United States, and U.S. military unit insignia that may incorporate confederate symbols. Also, the propose name (and the current name) is potential misleading to readers not familiar with American history (which also includes some Americans) or to readers who primary language is not English since the propose name could imply that the goal of the commission goal is to create names for new bases for the Confederate Army and does not imply name removal. -- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. "Confederate Base Naming Commission" is used in 404 sources, and an official source calls it the common name. "Confederate naming commission" had 0 results on Google before the move, 5 now that the article has been moved. In this scenario, it seems like original research to go with the name that has zero results. Which is why I feel strongly about this. On Wikipedia, so much of what we do involves following what we find in the sources. Here, the voters seem to want to make up a completely new term instead of going with what is in the sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the above Google link, the earliest reference to "Confederate Base Naming Commission" is a January 8, 2021, Politico article titled "Pentagon appoints Trump loyalist to Confederate base renaming commission". Please note the case used in the article/title. A February 1st Washington Times article also uses lower case. Both articles predate the Defense Dept. press release. However, "Confederate base renaming commission" is used in 4,610 sources. 108.71.214.235 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Can I propose "Confederate base renaming commission" as a possible new article name since this phrase has now increase its appearance on Google to 23,400 while "Confederate Base Naming Commission" dropped to 397 and "Confederate naming commission" drop to 3. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Rename to "Confederate base renaming commission". Whatever the most common short name is, I support. "Base" doesn't bother me... I feel WP:COMMONNAME is more important. Good find, 85. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: If we do choose Confederate base renaming commission, I also suggest citing the January 8th Politico article as the source of first use. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Featous and Levivich: Any interest in "Confederate base renaming commission"? That's a different name from my original proposal. Not trying to badger/bludgeon, but the # of sources it's mentioned in is impressive, so figured I'd give you a ping before this closes. See IP 85's comment above. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, I don't feel badgered :-) I think it's better without "base" because the renaming commission is not limited to renaming bases. Here's my fuller thinking on it:

  1. Per WP:HITS, Google search result numbers are not a useful indicator: those numbers aren't what they appear to be. Similarly, Washington Times is listed yellow at WP:RSP for politics. WP:COMMONNAME requires a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, and I don't see evidence of that. (DOD is not independent; Washington Times and Google are not RSes, etc.) In my view, there isn't a common name.
  2. WP:COMMONNAME also says Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources, and I think "base" is ambiguous or inaccurate, even if it is more frequently used by reliable sources.
  3. If there were other types of Confederate naming commissions, like a Confederate statute naming commission, then it would make sense to disambiguate with the word "base". But that's not the case here.
  4. WP:AT has five criteria, and adding "base" to the title (in lowercase) makes it less precise (it's not just bases), and less concise (one additional word). So I think it's really a step backwards from a AT policy standpoint.

  Bottom line, because it's not just a base renaming commission, adding the word "base" to the title doesn't make sense to me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Featous, Levivich, and Novem Linguae: Collectively, I think we are SLOWLY moving towards consensus. At this point, I think that we can all agree that the name should be all lowercase beyond the first word and that the name should contain the word "renaming" instead of "naming" and should be something in the form "Confederate <<SOME-WORD/PHRASE-OR-NO-WORD>> renaming commission". Levivich does bring up some good points. Reviewing the ten army installations would take the commission almost no time while reviewing the names of streets and buildings, and identifying DoD items (portraits, statues, monuments, unit insignia, etc.) that may glorify the Confederacy would take most of the commission's time. So including the word "base" would give the reader the false impression that the work of the commission is more narrow than it really is and thus less accurate. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• New suggestion: @Featous, Levivich, and Novem Linguae: I propose changing Confederate naming commission to Confederate renaming commission since the commission's job is to have military item renamed and this is a term used by the Washington Post and may cover everyone's concerns by being short and comprehensive enough. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pictures on The Naming Commission website

Would it be possible for someone to upload the pictures of the new replacement naming candidates for the Army bases that are shown on The Naming Commission website? If that is possible, I think it would greatly enhance the article. -- 50.195.206.177 (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Renamed bases in historical articles and sections

I noticed that with the work of The Naming Commission, that several of the bases are having their pre-naming history changed. I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I started a discussion on Talk:Fort Moore#Name of fort in history section. I would appreciate some other input on this topic. Thanks. rogerd (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Rogerd, this renaming stuff is simply the Left's attempt to re-write history in order to redress what it sees as the greatest tragedy of modern times. Tpkatsa (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)