Talk:United Kingdom exit from the European Union

How about moving to the commonly used name, Brexit? Or is that only for Wikipedia? Ro Thorpe (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As a supposedly academically oriented site, maybe we prefer more formal, less colloquial names. WP's usual policy (there are of course exceptions, leading to endless arguments) is to use the "common name". Peter Jackson (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Then there would be other examples where CZ eschews the common name in favour of a descriptive phrase. When I have time, I'll look around. Ro Thorpe (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just found CZ:Naming conventions, which says we usually follow the same common-name convention as WP, but with exceptions it doesn't specify. Peter Jackson (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

One example where we both depart from the principle is Catholic Church, which is its own preferred name for itself, rather than the commoner Roman Catholic Church (redirect). Peter Jackson (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this exchange and came here to...you guessed it. I agree with "Catholic Church" by the way; compare the common phrase "Catholics and Protestants". Do we have to ask a constable to move it? Do they still exist? Ro Thorpe (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it looks quite moveable. Ro Thorpe (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the move option is there, under More. It's the policy that's unclear.

It may be commoner to talk of Catholics but nevertheless commoner to talk of the RCC. Most encyclopaedias (except Americana) have entries under the fuller name.

Our problem is that, under the new "system", we no longer have a defined decision-making procedure. WP has, in theory, decision by "consensus". There's no substantive definition of that, but there's an operational one:

1. After discussion, somebody not involved in the discussion (usually an admin, sometimes an ordinary user (even apparently not logged in), sometimes a committee) declares what consensus if any has been reached.
2. Anyone can appeal that to admin noticeboard, where a consensus (recursively defined in the same way) can override the original ruling.
3. Any 3 people can appeal further to ArbCom.
4. In theory, anyone can then appeal to JW, who retains reserve powers to overturn ArbCom decisions, but he has never used those and has said he expects never to do so.

And there's a set of defaults for failure to reach consensus, usually status quo ante bellum.

Complicated and not always sensible, but at least reasonably well defined.

Here, at present, as a last resort, it would likely be up to John to decide what if any decision has been reached, as he's the one with the sysop powers to enforce it. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

'The common names for things are preferred' says CZ:Naming conventions. No reason to make an exception for 'Brexit' that I can see. Ro Thorpe (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I suspect you're right. It gives the example of preferring Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton, which seems fairly similar to this. Personally, I think it lowers the tone of the place, but there you go. Peter Jackson (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A Brexit by any other name would smell as rank... Ro Thorpe (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)