View source for Wiki143 talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)

{{talkheader|search=y}}

== RFC regarding the title format for articles covering bilateral relations ==

{{archive top|status=It's complicated|result=
In this RfC, editors discussed several proposals to codify a particular naming convention for bilateral relations. Option A and Option B prescribe a particular format, while option C avoids a prescriptive format in favor of a case-by-case approach. Editors debated the proposals in light of the five [[WP:CRITERIA]] given in the article titles policy, especially the aspect of the policy that commands the uses of [[WP:COMMONNAME|commonly recognizable names]] and the criteria of consistency. 

Several editors in support of Option A argued that the the option was a more natural format, that the format was more commonly used than Option B in reliable sources, and that Option A tends to better reflect the names given to bilateral relations when they are covered in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. A good chunk of those who support Option A do so conditionally, arguing that they support Option A ''because'' it is most often the common name, though they prefer whatever the article subject is overwhelmingly referred to as. Editors in support of option A cite as evidence several sets of bilateral relations that they say are unambiguously referred to in the format specified.

Arguments in support of Option B, on the other hand say that, using the noun forms of countries will make bilateral relations easier to naturally find. Some editors note that [[WP:PLACE]] specifies an order of names for articles involving two countries, which would make it easier to look up relations. Other claim that the current norm is already to use the noun form and that consistency is desirable across all naming conventions. 

An editor desired to express a first preference for Option C, saying that we should [[WP:CREEP|avoid instruction creep]]. Other editors argued that having one naming convention would be better than having none, so as to not have repeated discussions on what the norm is for this naming convention.

The quantities of users expressing support for option A and option B were relatively even in the discussion. However [[WP:CON|consensus]] is not [[WP:DETCON|not determined by a vote, but is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.]]

[[WP:MOSAT]], the policy for establishing subject-specific naming conventions, states that {{tq|Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains... In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia}} (internal links omitted).

Arguments in favor of Option A and arguments in favor of Option B both make specific claims that their option provides real and tangible benefits to the encyclopedia over the other option. Neither arguments in favor of Option A nor those in favor of Option B are fully refuted; the community discussion failed to find that either Option A or Option B was clearly superior to the other. As a result, viewed in light of [[WP:PAG|Wikipedia policy]] and even though editors almost wholly prefer the establishment of a particular naming convention over the absence of one, '''editors achieved no consensus to establish either Option A or Option B as ''the'' subject-specific naming convention.''' 

In the absence of a consensus to adopt either particular option, there is no prescribed norm for how these articles should be titled. Editors who seek to change the article title of a bilateral relations page are free to open move requests, make arguments in light of the [[WP:AT|article titles policy]], and to handle the names of bilateral relations articles in a case-by-case manner just like any other article. Editors are reminded to refrain from [[WP:TEND|tendentious editing]] in this regard and are encouraged to seek consensus by [[WP:RM|opening a move request]] rather than by unilaterally making page moves that are likely to be contested and controversial. {{nac}} — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 23:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

----
Update: I was asked by {{u|BilledMammal}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mhawk10&diff=1076025811&oldid=1075939110 here] to expand upon the extent of community consensus with respect to arguments about consistency. As I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMhawk10&type=revision&diff=1076069490&oldid=1076065893 noted on my talk page], I really can't give specific guidance on how arguments involving consistency should be weighed across ''all bilateral relations'', since the discussion really didn't reach a consensus on that. Consistency is a part of the [[WP:AT]] and still matters, but the above close finds no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. The inability of the community to reach a consensus on a naming convention indicates that there is no community consensus that claims of consistency should be the ''sole'' reason for naming a bilateral relations article a certain way. In other words, consistency is one among five explicit criteria; evaluation of proposed titles must be weighed with respect to the strength of arguments made in light of the article titling policy ''as a whole''. — [[User:Mhawk10|Mhawk10]] ([[User talk:Mhawk10 |talk]]) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC) 
}}

Which title format should articles discussing bilateral relations use:<br>
'''A'''. Use the adjectival or adjectival compound form of the countries name when they are available and natural (eg, German–Icelandic relations, Franco-German relations)<br>
'''B'''. Use the nounal form of the countries name throughout (eg, Germany–Iceland relations)<br>
'''C'''. Consider each article's [[WP:COMMONNAME|common name]]; do not apply a uniform format<br>

06:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

:<small>Notified [[WP:WPFR]] 06:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)</small>
:<small>Pinging {{ping|WikiCleanerMan}}, {{ping|Happily888}}, {{ping|Kj cheetham}}, {{ping|Beshogur}}, {{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}, {{ping|Super Dromaeosaurus}}, {{ping|Paradise Chronicle}}, {{ping|SilentResident}}, {{ping|GGT}}, {{ping|Pilaz}}, {{ping|Timrollpickering}}, {{ping|Paintspot Infez}}, {{ping|LSGH}}, {{ping|Roger 8 Roger}}, {{ping|TU-nor}}, {{ping|Elias}}, {{ping|Rreagan007}}, and {{ping|Laurel Lodged}}, who participated in recent RM's on the topic during which support for an RFC was expressed. 07:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)</small>

*'''A''', otherwise '''C'''. I see some value in a uniform format, but only if that uniform format is aligned to the format [[WP:COMMONNAME|generally used]], which is the case for option A but not the case for option B, as can be seen in the following ngrams. Note that the countries were selected before the ngrams were checked; the only ngrams checked and not included are those that produced no results:
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Italian-Albanian+relations%2CAlbanian-Italian+relations%2CItaly-Albania+relations%2CAlbania-Italy+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CItalian%20-%20Albanian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAlbanian%20-%20Italian%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Albania and Italy]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Algerian-Libyan+relations%2CLibyan-Algerian+relations%2CAlgeria-Libya+relations%2CLibya-Algeria+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAlgerian%20-%20Libyan%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLibyan%20-%20Algerian%20relations%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CAlgerian%20-%20Libyan%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLibyan%20-%20Algerian%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Algeria and Libya]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Brazilian-Argentine+relations%2CArgentine-Brazilian+relations%2CBrazil-Argentina+relations%2CArgentina-Brazil+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBrazilian%20-%20Argentine%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CArgentine%20-%20Brazilian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CBrazil%20-%20Argentina%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Argentina and Brazil]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Belgium-Germany+relations%2CBelgian-German+relations%2CGermany-Belgium+relations%2CGerman-Belgian+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBelgian%20-%20German%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGerman%20-%20Belgian%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Belgium and Germany]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Anglo-Canadian+relations%2CCanadian-British+relations%2CUnited+Kingdom-Canada+relations%2CCanada-United+Kingdom+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CAnglo%20-%20Canadian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CCanadian%20-%20British%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Canada and the United Kingdom]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Sino-Vietnamese+relations%2CChina-Vietnam+relations%2CVietnamese-Chinese+relations%2CVietnam-China+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSino%20-%20Vietnamese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CChina%20-%20Vietnam%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CVietnamese%20-%20Chinese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CVietnam%20-%20China%20relations%3B%2Cc0 China and Vietnam]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Swedish-Norwegian+relations%2CSweden-Norway+relations%2CNorway-Sweden+relations%2CNorwegian-Swedish+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSwedish%20-%20Norwegian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNorwegian%20-%20Swedish%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Norway and Sweden]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Slovak-Polish+relations%2CPolish-Slovak+relations%2CPoland-Slovakia+relations%2CSlovakia-Poland+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSlovak%20-%20Polish%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CPolish%20-%20Slovak%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Slovakia and Poland]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Spanish-Portuguese+relations%2CPortuguese-Spanish+relations%2CPortugal-Spain+relations%2CSpain-Portugal+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSpanish%20-%20Portuguese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CPortuguese%20-%20Spanish%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Spain and Portugal]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Syrian-Egyptian+relations%2CEgyptian-Syrian+relations%2CEgypt-Syria+relations%2CSyria-Egypt+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSyrian%20-%20Egyptian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CEgyptian%20-%20Syrian%20relations%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CSyrian%20-%20Egyptian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CEgyptian%20-%20Syrian%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Syria and Egypt]
*#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Lao-Vietnamese+relations%2CVietnamese-Lao+relations%2CVietnam-Laos+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLao%20-%20Vietnamese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CVietnamese%20-%20Lao%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CVietnam%20-%20Laos%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Vietnam and Laos]
:There are exceptions but these are less frequent and typically show significant use of the non-nounal form, with South Africa and Nigeria being the only exception in the following, while in the above ngrams eight show no use of the nounal form. 
:#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=North+Korean-Japanese+relations%2CJapanese-North+Korean+relations%2CNorth+Korea-Japan+relations%2CJapan-North+Korea+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNorth%20Korean%20-%20Japanese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapanese%20-%20North%20Korean%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNorth%20Korea%20-%20Japan%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapan%20-%20North%20Korea%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Japan and North Korea]
:#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=South+Korean-Japanese+relations%2CJapanese-South+Korean+relations%2CSouth+Korea-Japan+relations%2CJapan-South+Korea+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSouth%20Korean%20-%20Japanese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapanese%20-%20South%20Korean%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSouth%20Korea%20-%20Japan%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapan%20-%20South%20Korea%20relations%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CSouth%20Korean%20-%20Japanese%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapanese%20-%20South%20Korean%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSouth%20Korea%20-%20Japan%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CJapan%20-%20South%20Korea%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Japan and South Korea]
:#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Malaysian-Singapore+relations%2CMalaysia-Singapore+relations%2CSingapore-Malaysian+relations%2CSingapore-Malaysia+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CMalaysian%20-%20Singapore%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CMalaysia%20-%20Singapore%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSingapore%20-%20Malaysian%20relations%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSingapore%20-%20Malaysia%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Malaysia and Singapore]
:#[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Nigeria-South+Africa+relations%2CSouth+Africa-Nigeria+relations%2CSouth+African-Nigerian+relations&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNigeria%20-%20South%20Africa%20relations%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CNigeria%20-%20South%20Africa%20relations%3B%2Cc0 Nigeria and South Africa]
:Should there not be a consensus for A I would support C over B, as while there is some benefit in a uniform format that is only true if that uniform format is the commonly used format; if the proposed uniform format is little used or unused for most countries then it is not suitable for use and a more granular method is required. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::I tend to agree with your reasoning and conclusion: '''A C B''''. Another aspect of this is the not rarely used adjectival compound form of a country or people - Franco-, Anglo-, Russo- and so on. If we include those, as I think we should, they fit into both A and C, with a slight leaning to C, because using French or Franco- is likely to depend on what the other country is, hence case by case, or option C. I have just seen this title [[China-Soviet Union relations]]. Just saying it sounds grating to me; I have always used Sino-Soviet relations, which roles off the tongue, more so than Chinese-Soviet relations. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 11:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Roger 8 Roger}} I've rephrased the RFC slightly; the intent of A was to allow the use of those adjectival compound (or combining, as I previously termed them) forms when appropriate - see the example of "Franco-German relations". In light of that, could you clarify your position? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Yes, I see more clearly now BilledMammal. My choice then is simply and unconditionally A C D. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 11:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
* Support '''A''' or '''C''', which to my mind basically boil down to the same thing. [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is the only valid criterion here. [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] can never justify imposing a uniform pattern ''against the overwhelming weight'' of usage in reliable sources. As Billed Mammal's evidence above has shown yet again, for many if not most country pairs the adjectival naming patterns are essentially the only ones that are found in reliable sources; the noun–noun compounds (like "Germany–France relations") are virtually non-existent. They are so rare as to be essentially ungrammatical or at least unnatural. We cannot and should not invent our own naming practices for the sake of uniformity, if the result is unnatural in English. Of course, there are ''some'' country pairs where adjectival forms are simply not available – it's a simple fact of grammar that country names aren't a homogeneous grammatical class in English, so there's no one-size-fits-all solution. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 11:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
* Support '''B''' (<small>Note: The present RfC opened due to the RM discussion that took place here at: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greece%E2%80%93Turkey_relations#Requested_move_1_January_2022 Greece–Turkey relations#Requested move 1 January 2022]</small>). I support option B, because articles are about the bilateral relations between countries, not people. The adjectival form has a broader use, and, besides applying for countries, it also applies for nations and ethnic groups. Use of adjectival forms (over actual country names) to describe these countries, is rather problematic and may suggest more than just the diplomatic relations between countries, i.e. relations between the people. For example [[Greece]] and [[Turkey]] are two countries whose diplomatic relations ([[Greece-Turkey relations]] span a century. However the actual relations between Greeks and Turks, span over 6 centuries and are much older than the relations between these states. Most editors not familiar with the complicated situations in various regions across Wikipedia, also may not be aware that Greece & Turkey are not even the only Greek-Turkish entities. There are also the Greek-majority [[Republic of Cyprus]], and the Turkish-majority [[Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus]]. My example about the two Cypriot states may seem as red-herring to the experienced editors who are already familiar with Greek and Turkish affairs, but it is not the same for the inexperienced editors and readers. Wikipedia should use all the clarity possible since as a Project, it aims to reach to the broader base, including all kinds of readers and editors. The use of adjectival forms (Option A) is not invalid and personally I do not find it to be wrong. Just it cannot apply everywhere, at least not without causing some confusion! Option A ot is rather too ambiguous for a number of reasons like the ones I have explained above.
:Option B doesn't have these problems, since it is characterized by [[WP:PRECISION]] on article titles. For an encyclopedic project like this, clarity should be a priority here. We can, and we ought, to define the scope of these articles clearly from the start, already: their titles, as to avoid such issues of ambiguity. In my humble opinion, if the one country's article is titled "Country A", and the other country's article is titled "Country B", then the article about their bilateral diplomatic relations should be <nowiki>"[Country A's article title]-[Country B's article title] relations"</nowiki>.
:Edit: Another thing I would like to point out is the fact that Country names are more [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]], globally, than adjectives ever were. And are preferred ever for cases where their institutions are also using their country names to distinguish themselves instead of using mere adjectives for that. For example, [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France)]] or [[Congress (US)]] and so on. Also, country names are more [[WP:NATURAL]] to use in search engines when looking for their relations with other countries. Per WP:NATURALNESS: "{{tq|The title is one that readers are likely to look or search}}", is the one that is the most natural for the readers. And this is very true about i.e. [[France-Netherlands relations]]. Had we gone with Option A, these articles would be renamed into [[Dutch-French relations]] which may cause confusion, considering how drastically different the country's name (Netherlands) is to its related adjective (Dutch). To not mention the confusion stemming from countries sharing very similar adjectives (almost identical), such as [[Niger]] and [[Nigeria]]; had we gone with the application of Option A for [[Niger-Nigeria relations]], then it would have to be moved into [[Nigerien-Nigerian relations]] and that would prove very unproductive.
:Last, I would like to point to the fact that grammar discussions about adjectival forms, albeit interesting, are not supported by Wikipedia's naming guidelines for Article titles. Per [[WP:Article Titles]]: {{tq|Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance, Integration), although sometimes they are disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming.}}.
:Considering all the above facts, and considering that a Naming Convention has to be simple and straight-forward so that the editors can follow and apply it [[WP:CONSISTENT]]ly, without a risk of getting into more debates of this kind in the future, like the one that happened at [[Talk:Greece-Turkey relations]], I believe Option B is the most suitable of all the presented options and is policy-compliant with Wikipedia's naming guidelines, and especially WP:AT. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 12:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:* Having looked into this it appears that almost all uses of the form "Adjective-Adjective relations" are in the context of bilateral relations; while it might theoretically have broader use, in practice these broader uses appear to be rare, and so I don't find the argument that the form is confusing or imprecise to hold much weight. I would also note that if it was, it wouldn't be the commonly used form in articles for both newspaper and scientific journals as they have the same concerns about ambiguity that we do - indeed, even in articles about Greek-Turkish relations in the context of Cyprus the adjectival form continues to be used in the majority of cases (see Google Scholar results for [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?&q=Cyprus+intitle%3A%22Greek-Turkish+relations%22 Greek-Turkish relations] (159 results) and [https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?&q=Cyprus+intitle%3A%22Greece-Turkey+relations%22 Greece-Turkey relations] (0 results) - note that the search is limited to the articles title, as in such cases the authors believe its meaning is clear without context); if the term was ambiguous it would be here where authors choose to use a the nounal form, and the fact that they don't suggests very strongly to me that it isn't.
:: I would also note that we already use a title that could be argued to be ambiguous; articles about relations between China and other countries do not specify whether China is referring to the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China. As you say, this could be seen to be a red herring and an obvious case, but your argument about "unexperienced editors and readers" would apply just as strongly here, and if we can manage the potential ambiguity caused by using the nounal forms without issue and without needing to abandon the concise and common name for China, then I believe we can manage any potential ambiguity from using the adjectival form without needing to abandon the common and natural format for bilateral relations. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, BilledMammal, I understand your point. That is why, the formula I have proposed above in my !vote for Option B, is the best for the long-term stability of Wikipedia, (at least in my view). My proposed form is: <nowiki>"[Country A's article title]-[Country B's article title] relations"</nowiki>, whereas the country A's article title is "China" and the country B's article title is "Taiwan", therefore the article title about their relations should be "China-Taiwan relations". Do not mention what problems the Option A could cause in cases where countries are having different names, yet share the same identity, i.e: [[Cyprus]] and [[Northern Cyprus]]. Had we gone with Option A, and thus describing them as [[Cypriot-Northern Cypriot relations]], couldn't that imply that the Northern Cypriots may not actually be Cypriots? This would constitute a blatant violation of Wikipedia's [[WP:NEUTRALITY]] rules and a big insult to the identity of the Turkish Cypriots (who have a Cypriot consciousness and consider the island of Cyprus to be their homeland). On the other hand, the use of their country names in their relations eliminates such potential issues. If we really want to be on the safe side here, we ought to avoid adjectival forms. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::My point around the use of "China" is that in articles such as [[China-South Korea relations]] it could be seen as ambiguous whether it is referring to the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China - and if we can handle that potential ambiguity, then we can handle the potential ambiguity that you see, though I would note that I don't believe either case to be ambiguous.
::::On the example of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, three points. First, this seems to be a continuation of the ambiguity discussion; if it is not ambiguous, and per my evidence it is not, then there is not an issue as it clearly refers to the country. Second, the common adjectival form for Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot", per [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Turkish+Cypriot-_ADJ_+_NOUN_%2CNorthern+Cypriot-_ADJ_+_NOUN_%2C_ADJ_-Turkish+Cypriot+_NOUN_%2C_ADJ_-Northern+Cypriot+_NOUN_&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CTurkish%20Cypriot%20-%20_ADJ_%20_NOUN_%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C_ADJ_%20-%20Turkish%20Cypriot%20_NOUN_%3B%2Cc0 ngrams] so the issue as raised doesn't apply. Third, the general notion of it being offensive and non-neutral seems odd even in other contexts; [[South Korean cuisine]] doesn't suggest that South Koreans aren't Koreans. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::: The PRC/ROC is really a non-problem because the respective Wikipedia pages of [[China]] and [[Taiwan]] have determined by consensus that those are the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] (see [[Talk:Taiwan/Archive_25#Requested_move_2_February_2017|this RM]], for example). [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 15:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:* The reference to [[WP:AT]] is ''not'' a valid argument. Whatever result this RfC gives, these articles will have a noun phrase (with the noun 'relations'). WP:AT does ''not'' say that you cannot use adjectives in the title. Of course it does not, since that would disallow page titles like "Turkish cuisine", "Greek language", "Armenian geoncide", "Russian roulette" etc. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::TU-nor, the argument about [[Armenian Genocide]], [[Greek language]], etc, is not convincing and I find it irrational for obvious factual reasons: It can't be "Armenia geoncide" since the Genocide didn't target the country Armenia which didn't exist back then, but the Armenians within another country, the Ottoman Empire. Likewise, there is no "Greece language" but there is "Greek language", which is not bound to the boundaries of a specific country (such as "Greece"). The diplomatic relations however, are very specifically about the countries themselves and nothing else. The Greek people (be it those who live either in Greece or abroad) do not maintain diplomatic relations with the Turkish people (from Turkey or from abroad) for example. They do have cultural, or other types of relations and connections however. [[WP:AT]] still stands in that ''nouns are preferred for titles, and adjectives should redirect there instead.'' --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 14:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::SilentResident, my comment was purely about your fallacious reference to WP:AT (and the use of adjectives in titles). --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 14:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Add: My answer was written before I saw your addition. You seem to be misunderstanding what WP:AT says. The sentence "nouns are preferred for titles, and adjectives should redirect there instead" means that the article title should not be an adjective. It should be a noun '''or a noun phrase'''. The title "Greek-Turkish relations" is not an adjective. It is a noun phrase. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 14:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::"{{tq|my fallacious}}"? Now, that's unexpected to hear, and disappointing. <s>Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's naming policies first?</s> <small>Edit: apparently you DO know the naming rules, just thinking about it better, I realized what you say is really about (see second paragraph of the present comment, below).</small> And how about you read other's statements and see whether it is indeed just my "fallacious reference to WP:AT" and not something that the others, both here and at the [[Talk:Greece-Turkey relations]], have acknowledged as well.
:::::"{{tq|The title "Greek-Turkish relations" is not an adjective. It is a noun phrase.}}" I do understand where are you coming from. However if I were you I wouldn't go down the road of approaching it this way because most people wouldn't see it like that. Option A is adjectival form, for most. Not nounal. Including me (before you mentioned this now) Now, whether A has to be approached as being an adjectival form or nounal form, only makes me more convinced that Option B should be better all together because none would argue whether it is nounal or not and get confused.  --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 14:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::WP:AT is about article titles. Article titles should not be adjectives, but preferably a noun or a noun phrase. "Greece–Turkey relations" is a noun phrase. So is "Greek-Turkish relations". And "Greek language". And "Russian roulette". The three last examples include adjectives, but they are still noun phrases. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 15:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
*Support '''B'''. There's a significant aspect that's missing from this RfC but that [[WP:PLACE]] includes: country names should be in alphabetical order. With A or C, you would be instead be deviating from the rule more often than not, since some adjective-form bilateral relations do not respect the alphabetical rule by their nature (i.e. Franco-British relations, German-American relations, Zimbabwean-American relations). The reason why the noun form was chosen over a decade ago was to avoid the pointless infighting generated when there isn't a clear order of precedence in the adjectival form (i.e. [[Australia–Indonesia relations|Australia-Indonesia relations]]: is it Indonesian-Australian relations or Australian-Indonesian relations? Australian government-affiliated researchers [https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596/96rp25 can't make up their mind], but Australia-Indonesia is on the contrary quite consensual in that paper and [https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-indonesia-relations-keeping-it-real/ here]). The argument that the noun form is ungrammatical is also dubious, since ''CountryA-CountryB relations'' is simply the shortened version of ''relations between CountryA and CountryB''. Personally, I find Danish-Spanish/Spanish-Danish relations as funky as the noun form. And, to quote the closer [[Talk:Greece%E2%80%93Turkey_relations#Requested_move_1_January_2022 Greece–Turkey relations#Requested move 1 January 2022|of the RM at Greece-Turkey relations]]: "Grammar discussions are interesting, but not supported by [[WP:AT]] title policy." At any rate, switching to A or C would certainly make article titles more heterogenous and therefore less [[WP:CONSISTENT]] with each other, and therefore  make them harder to find for our readers, so I can only support Option B. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 13:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::Exactly. And to not add, Pilaz, to what you have just said, about the potential confusion stemming from title inconsistencies, due to the fact that in some cases, a country's name may be drastically different than its adjectival form, as is in the case of [[Netherlands]] (country) and [[Dutch]] (adjective). [[Netherlands]]'s relations with other countries, lets say France, are less confusing when titled [[France–Netherlands relations]] instead of [[Dutch-French relations]]. Edit: Also another case that may cause POV issues is the relations between [[Cyprus]] and [[Northern Cyprus]]. Describing them as [[Cypriot-Northern Cypriot relations]], implies that the Northern Cypriots may not actually be Cypriots. Which in my opinion is a blatant [[WP:NPOV]] violation. However, there could be no NPOV violation if [[Cyprus-Northern Cyprus relations]] is used instead. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::: If A/C prevail, though, I will be excited to read the RMs in favor of [[Holy See–Myanmar relations|Papal-Burmese relations]] and [[China-Equatorial Guinea relations|Sino-Equatoguinean]] relations. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::: That won't be an issue; the relevant adjectival form of Equatorial Guinea is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=_ADJ_-Equatorial+Guinean+_NOUN_%2CEquatorial+Guinean-_ADJ_+_NOUN_%2CEquatoguinean-_ADJ_+_NOUN_%2C_ADJ_-Equatoguinean+_NOUN_&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C_ADJ_%20-%20Equatorial%20Guinean%20_NOUN_%3B%2Cc0 Equatorial Guinean]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::: Thank you for proving my point that we'll have to debate whether to use Equatoguinean or Equatorial Guinean, despite the fact that [https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/equatorialguinea/26446.htm both adjectives are accepted]. Like I said, it's going to be fun and definitely worth our time. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 17:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC) 
:* The argument about {{tq|harder to find}} is easily solved through redirects, as is the case with the current titles, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Greece–Turkey_relations&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 here]. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 14:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::* You could technically fix that with redirects, but redirects at present do not inform article naming policy. If it's harder to find, it's because it likely doesn't meet [[WP:AT]]'s [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]] and [[WP:NATURALNESS]]. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 14:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::* That would appear to be an argument for C or A, as the form that is harder to find - the form that is less common - is the nounal form required by B? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
::::* They are equally valid arguments for B, since it depends on which part of the form of the guideline you choose to emphasize and what you consider to be easier or harder to find. Personally, I think that an alphabetical noun form is likely to be easier to find by someone familiar with the subject of bilateral relations than an adjectival form, because they have a homogenous, predictable name format. United Kingdom-United States relations will always be easier to find than Anglo-American relations/British-American relations because one doesn't have to guess which comes first. [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 14:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::* I would think someone familiar with the subject of bilateral relations would use the form that they most commonly encounter when reading about bilateral relations - the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. The only people likely to benefit from the nounal form are those who are aware of this {{tq|Wiki-only solution}}, and even they will have to guess as without a common name to refer to they won't know whether "United Kingdom" or "United States" comes first. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''B''' While "A" may be more conventionally correct, I think that this is true only for career diplomats and historians who while snappy titles for books. That's a small group. For everybody else, the adjectival form can be abstruse; who would guess that "Sino" actually refers to China? So while it is a bit Noddyish, I'd prefer B which lacks all ambiguity. Also the United Kingdom is a nightmare: in one direction it's Foo-British, but in the other direction it's not British-Foo but United-Kingdom-Foo. Option B gets around this ambiguity. It's Wiki-only solution, but it's better than what's out there right now. [[User:Laurel Lodged|Laurel Lodged]] ([[User talk:Laurel Lodged|talk]]) 13:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
**{{ping|Laurel Lodged}} When trying to read through all the arguments in this discussion, I had to stop and think. But I don't get it, so I'll ask: If it is Foo-British in one direction, why shouldn't it be British-Foo in the other direction? --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
**{{ping|Laurel Lodged}} I don't think you are correct; it's also used is mass media. For example, among the most popular news websites by readership size, "Sino-Japanese relations" is preferred over "China-Japan relations"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption text
|-
! Media !! Sino-Japanese relations !! China-Japan relations
|-
| BBC || '''23 results''' || 9 results
|-
| MSN || 10 results || '''20 results'''
|-
| CNN || '''29 results''' || 18 results
|-
| New York Times || '''37 results''' || 32 results
|-
| The Guardian || '''36 results''' || 16 results
|-
| Fox News || 4 results || '''5 results'''
|-
| India Times || 19 results || '''35 results'''
|-
| NDTV || '''19 results || 13 results
|-
| Washington Post || '''22 results''' || 15 results
|-
| CNBC || '''23 results''' || 7 results
|}
::[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''A''' (or '''C''', which for most practical situations is the same). The most fundamental rule of Wikipedia is to follow the sources. In several af the ngrams provided by BilledMammal the noun versions are not just less common, they are ''not'' found at all. I see no reason to construct Wikipedia titles that no sources use, especially when it is in conflict with normal English grammar and usage. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 14:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''C''' (Invited by the bot.)  A suggestion / guidance  here would be nice, but a rule or defacto rule is wp:creep. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 23:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''A'''. This is the one I have seen the most in my past readings on relations between countries . --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 02:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Spekkios}} If there is no consensus for A, would you support C; my reading of your statement suggests you would, but clarity might be useful. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
::*Yes, I would support C if there is no consensus for A. --[[User:Spekkios|Spekkios]] ([[User talk:Spekkios|talk]]) 07:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''B''' A and C won't fit and there is already a standard to how we name bilateral relations articles. Are we just going to start changing article titles to whatever we feel like? This whole RFC isn't necessary and it's really an attempt by a few of the participants from the Greece-Turkey relations move discussion to change it back because they don't like it or they feel it sounds weird. Feelings, likes, or dislikes are not how we do anything on Wikipedia. Or even change things on Wikipedia. It either follows the guidelines or it doesn't. Regardless of how we or someone else may feel. SilentResident perfectly has explained above why the names of the countries, the common names (eg, Germany-Iceland relations), should be the way we name bilateral relations articles. And to mention that proponents of anything other than B are misstating, on purpose or not, and cherry-picking examples that fit their side. Seeing one of the examples on articles and making that a choice without any rationale is concerning as to what may come of this discussion. There is already a standard and it should remain as is. Who will take on the burden of changing all the articles and fix the massive amount of redirects that may of it? It would cause a huge mess and make editing harder. --[[User:WikiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]] ([[User talk:WikiCleanerMan|talk]]) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:*{{ping|WikiCleanerMan}} You claim that support of anything else than B is based on {{tq|[f]eelings, likes, or dislikes}} and making a choice {{tq|without any rationale}}. If you would take the time to read the !votes, you will find that arguments for A actually are policy-based at least as much as arguments for B, if not more. Also, your claim that "Germany–Iceland relations" is the common name, is contradicted by [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28Iceland-Germany+relations%29%2C%28Icelandic-German+relations%29%2C%28Germany-Iceland+relations%29%2C%28German-Icelandic+relations%29&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28Iceland%20-%20Germany%20relations%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28Icelandic%20-%20German%20relations%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28Germany%20-%20Iceland%20relations%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28German%20-%20Icelandic%20relations%29%3B%2Cc0 this n-gram]. [[WP:COMMONNAME]]! [[WP:RS]]! --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 07:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:::Ngrams have nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia. And search results are not sources. Common names for countries are Germany, Iceland, United States. Formal names for countries are Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, etc. The long titles that we don't title articles for countries because the common name rule applies. Common names for bilateral relations use the countries' common names that are provided. No vote in statement of policy has been cited just misstatements, either unintentionally or intentionally. This RFC is going to cause a lot of harm if the already set style of naming bilateral relations articles is going to change. I don't think any editor would want to fix redirects and even the main bilateral categories that are used on a majority of such articles. --[[User:WikiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]] ([[User talk:WikiCleanerMan|talk]]) 15:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:*{{ping|WikiCleanerMan}} I was pinged which is the only reason I'm here: I don't have a strong view -- but asking you the following to understand. How would this work for people that do not have a nation state, such as the Kurds relations with Turkey or the Roma people generally? I note that the [[Israel–Kurdistan Region relations]] refers to a state in Iraq which works but does not work for the Turkish Kurds. But what about if the state is not recognised by the international community, like Northern Cyprus? Again, I see how [[Northern Cyprus–United States relations]] exists but who decides that is ok to merit an article? I like the simplicity of using nation states but I don't like the consequences. Like for example, the Turkey-Greece page is now making editors question inclusion of history before the Greek state's formation...and this is a problem as this history is still relevant to modern nation state relations (ie, the rights of minorities in a non pluralistic nation), and so distorts the truth (or at least makes things look unbalanced as it only accepts recent history as the origin story). How does the line get drawn without distorting history? If it's a new page as pre-nation state relations are not relevant, aren't we just going in circles now? [[User:Eliasbizannes|Elias]] ([[User talk:Eliasbizannes|talk]]) 06:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:Eliasbizannes|Elias]], I created the Northern Cyprus-U.S. relations article after submitting it for review. There is enough information for there to be an article after I conducted research as there has been contact between NC and U.S. government officials and delegations. Even though official relations don't exist, it still has basic notability for bilateral relations. For the Kurdistan Region, it's different. The Iraqi Kurdistan government, referred to as Kurdistan Region, conducts relations on its behalf and represents the Iraqi government in a sense, but not entirely. The reason articles for their relations use Kurdistan Region is because using Kurdistan is not a country that exists and there are several places in the part of the Middle East that can be described as such, like [[Iranian Kurdistan]] or [[Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria|Rojava]] in Northern Syria. If there is enough information for relations for the Rojava and Iraqi Kurdistan articles then it has merit to stay because it passes basic GNG. Why would the historical relationship not be included? Of course it should. It's relevant information. Sometimes they merit their own pages such as [[Russian Empire–United States relations]]. --[[User:WikiCleanerMan|WikiCleanerMan]] ([[User talk:WikiCleanerMan|talk]]) 17:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
::::That makes sense. Thanks for sharing the example about Russia. Again, my concern is with consequences: by going with the modern state as the primary article, and allowing history on the page, that's clean. But this will now have editors arguing about relevance for including relations between former regimes. So there needs to be a guideline that accompanies this. [[User:Eliasbizannes|Elias]] ([[User talk:Eliasbizannes|talk]]) 18:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''A''' (or, otherwise, '''C''') As someone who doesn't usually edit bilateral relations articles, the adjectival/adjectival compound form ('''A''') IMO seems to be a much more intuitive format than '''B'''. Option '''A''' would also greatly improve [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY|RECOGNIZABILITY]] and [[WP:NATURALNESS|NATURALNESS]] of titles in most of these situations, being the most [[WP:COMMONNAME|COMMON]] format in sources per above n grams. [[User:Happily888|Happily888]] ([[User talk:Happily888|talk]]) 05:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
::Not true. Country names are more [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]], globally, than adjectives ever were. And when users look for relations between countries, it is more likely that they will put country names instead of adjectives on the search engine. Per WP:NATURALNESS: "{{tq|The title is one that readers are likely to look or search}}", and this is very true about i.e. France and Netherlands, whose relations article is titled "[[France-Netherlands relations]]" instead of, lets say "[[Dutch-French relations]]". It also doesn't help that the Netherlands's adjective, "Dutch" is being totally different to the country's name. What makes things more confusing is that, if we go with Option A, articles such as "[[Niger-Nigeria relations]]" will have to be moved into "Nigerien-Nigerian relations" which can be as confusing as ever. I understand that some editors may be passionate about Option A but I am really worried about the prospects of it; I am fully aware that it is only bound to cause more problems than solve. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk &#9993;]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs &#9998;]])</sup></span> 13:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:::In many cases, though, the adjectival forms are so much more common in bilateral relations articles and papers that almost all users search for the adjective. Surely you aren't trying to argue that "{{tq|someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area}}" won't [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY|recognize]] the adjectival forms of those countries that they are familiar with – despite the fact that this is the '''form''' that they most are likely be familiar with (that is, the adjectival '''form''' is in almost all cases used and preferred over the noun form) . The noun form (option '''B''') in regards to bilateral relations is in most cases neither familiar nor natural to users, especially to new users.
:::And it has already been established that [[WP:NATURALNESS]] is very much up to personal interpretation.
:::"{{tq|The title … that readers are likely to look or search}}" could be interpreted either as "the title that readers are likely to look or search ''[on a search engine/bar]''" or "the title that readers are likely to look or search ''[on Wikipedia after they have been able to figure out its wiki-only solution]''". Although, the sentence after this: "{{tq|Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.}}", would seem to give greater weight to the adjectival form (or option '''A''') being more natural. [[User:Happily888|Happily888]] ([[User talk:Happily888|talk]]) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''B''' otherwise A. wikipedia iswritten for the reader. Readers come here to find articles. When there's a natural group of related articles, they are helped if titles of articles are relatively uniform when this is practical. This is one place where it is. We should use the same name as the name of the country, or as close to it as possible. That's B. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
:*It does not matter at all for finding articles. As an example, if you are searching for the article about 'Greek-Turkish relations' (or 'Greece–Turkey relations', as it is currently), there are 26 different alternative spellings (search terms) that will lead you to the correct article, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Greece–Turkey_relations&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 here]. --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 09:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''B'''. ''Stare decisis:'' If we were starting from scratch, I'd go with A, but as it stands most of these articles are currently named according to B, and I don't see a compelling reason to change that. [[User:Yilloslime|Yilloslime]] ([[User talk:Yilloslime|talk]]) 17:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
**{{ping|Yilloslime}} It would make these articles consistent with other articles on inter-country relations, which outside of "relations" and "borders" appear to prefer the adjectival form, such as [[Russo-Ukrainian crisis]], [[Russian–Ukrainian cyberwarfare]], [[German–Polish declaration of non-aggression]], [[German–Polish customs war]], [[Siamese–Vietnamese wars]], [[Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy]], [[2020 Greek–Turkish border crisis]], [[Sino-Soviet relations from 1969–1991]], [[Sino-Soviet border conflict]], [[Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata]], [[Anglo-Polish alliance]], [[British–Polish–Ukrainian trilateral pact]] and [[Ethiopian–Somali conflict]].
*:Note that these examples are not proper nouns; the use is even more common in proper nouns, when we are following the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] rather than using our own format, such as with [[British-Brazilian Treaty of 1826]], [[Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company]], [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]], [[Anglo-French Supreme War Council]], [[Second Anglo-Dutch War]], [[Austro-German Postal Union]], [[Austro-Prussian War]], and [[Egyptian–Libyan War]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''A''' or, otherwise, '''C''', though the "when they are available and natural" provision of A means in practice there will be some nounal forms and some that will be subject to assessment, as implied in C. I don't see why there is any need or benefit to wholly standardising this. We have the [[Netherlands]], but [[Dutch people]], language etc. Some adjectival forms (such as Dutch) are actually better known and more natural to English speakers than the country name, and anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Netherlands will know all about the Dutch naming 'anomaly'. Many, perhaps most, adjectival forms are obvious, (Cuban? Chinese? German?), some are less used or less clear or less obvious (Sino-? British?), some are downright obscure to most readers ([[Hellenic]]?), so it makes sense to have a flexible guideline and in individual instances it might make sense to standardise by avoiding adjectival forms if they are at all ambiguous (British? American?) or otherwise unclear. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 11:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''B''' or A - As other's have pointed out, the ease of finding articles is nice. Additionally, if we go with C, we can expect dozens upon dozens upon dozens of endless discussions about whether an article should be titled using adjectives or nouns, and that just seems like a load of pointless faff. I much prefer a clean policy of just using the nouns in titles (or a clean policy of just using adjectives in titles). <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#006400 !important;font-weight:bold;">//[[User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|Lollipoplollipoplollipop]]::[[User talk:Lollipoplollipoplollipop|talk]]</span> 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': I have filed a closure request for this RfC at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]]. Best, [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 10:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''B''' – Having read the above discussion, i tend to prefer this option the most. [[User:Demetrios1993|Demetrios1993]] ([[User talk:Demetrios1993|talk]]) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Turkey, Türkiye ==

is there a policy for wiki-wide usage? Is there an RfC somewhere that I've missed? The [[Turkey]] article obviously went with the common name, but is there some agreement that Turkey should be used consistently across the site? Asking because I've seen some completely random articles where it was changed to Türkiye (like [[Ambassadors (TV series)]]). Having a firm policy that could be pointed to like [[MOS:USA]] would be helpful in ensuring consistency. --[[User:Jonas1015119|jonas]] ([[User talk:Jonas1015119|talk]]) 23:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

B-21 [[Special:Contributions/2603:6010:D300:6ED9:590B:3864:129C:9AD3|2603:6010:D300:6ED9:590B:3864:129C:9AD3]] ([[User talk:2603:6010:D300:6ED9:590B:3864:129C:9AD3|talk]]) 15:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

== सेल्फ नॉलेज फिलासफी अध्यापिका ज्ञान ==

थैंक यू सर हेल्प मी थैंक यू सर अशोक उपाध्याय महाराष्ट्र सोलापुर भारत वर्ष 74 सिटीजन सीनियर सुपर सिटीजन सीनियर थैंक यू सर हेल्प मी [[Special:Contributions/2409:4042:4C37:C9EF:0:0:D609:2704|2409:4042:4C37:C9EF:0:0:D609:2704]] ([[User talk:2409:4042:4C37:C9EF:0:0:D609:2704|talk]]) 09:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)