Talk:Telephone game

You can not be serious

I’d have to imagine this has been argued many times before and some absurd article overlord won but … Chinese Whispers … seriously?? Shit is comical. CarlStrokes (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I just found out about it today, and yes, it's comical. I will start RM now. Levivich (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

We call it Chinese Whispers in New Zealand, and I didn't know it was called anything else until now. The explanation I've heard (and for which I can't find any evidence) is that as Chinese is a tonal language, it is relatively harder to clearly communicate in whispered voices, leading to rapid degradation of meaning as a message is passed. Tonal languages rely heavily on pitch changes to convey different meanings, so using whispering makes it challenging for speakers and listeners to distinguish between tones, and therefore meanings. That actually makes a lot of sense to me, and would contradict those who claim a racist origin for the name. 219.88.232.196 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to originally proposed title. We need not decide whether the term "Chinese whispers" is objectively racist; we merely need recognize that its perceived racism is a valid reason to pick one of two otherwise equally-appropriate titles. MOS:RETAIN was raised as a counterargument to that, with one editor even suggesting that it trumps a local consensus, but, as persuasively noted by the nominator, RETAIN is a passive guideline that only applies "in the absence of consensus to the contrary"; this RM constitutes such a consensus.Template:PbThis brings us to the alternate proposal, Telephone (game). Even discounting the 4 editors who only commented before the alternate proposal, only 4 out of 14 supporters said they preferred parenthetical disambiguation. (Another 2 showed equal preference.) At the same time, there was not much explicit opposition to parenthetical disambiguation (only 2 of the remaining 8). Still, even if we were to give only 1⁄4 weight to comments that supported natural dab without explicitly opposing parenthetical, that would still make the matter a draw numerically. Turning to strength of arguments, I see a reasonable case that "Telephone game" is somewhat ambiguous, but not any argument that it's so ambiguous that a hatnote to Mobile game would not suffice. Given the general preference for natural disambiguation, I see a rough consensus for Telephone game. That said, this half of the close is based on a fairly weak consensus (and given the strength of the main consensus, I need to find some new title), so no prejudice against speedy renomination with respect to disambiguation format. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Chinese whispers → Telephone gameTelephone game – How about, given the choice between using a racist name popular in the former British Empire, and a non-racist name popular amongst more people in the rest of the world, we choose the non-racist name? It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia that the many prior RMs have centered around WP:ENGVAR--as if racism is a matter of English variation--and WP:RETAIN--as if we should continue to have a racist name because we've always had a racist name. Given the choice of two common, recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent names, let's go with the one that does not imply something negative about Chinese people. Levivich (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Notified WT:GAMES, WT:TELECOM, WT:CHINA. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced it's overtly racist (and that's not a phrase I often say). To be honest, I've never heard that name before today, so I did a bit of searching. I found a few marginally WP:RS which dance around the question without concluding one way or another, i.e. . doesn't say anything about that at all. And if you're looking for academic literature, I found which talks about the origins of the name but also doesn't conclude that it's racist. If we're going to insist on WP:RS for the text of our articles, I think we should also insist on WP:RS for how we title them. RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think of Phrase Finder as an RS, or any kind of authority on this, particularly as it's a UK source and the author writes: Template:Tq2 I'm not giving much weight to a source that says it's not racist because the English are not especially badly disposed towards the Chinese compared to how racist the English are towards other peoples, and anyway the Chinese are incomprehensible or inscrutable.

  Here are some other sources:

  • Template:Tq2
  • Template:Tq2
  • Template:Tq2
  • Template:Tq2
  • Template:Tq2

  These aren't really RS either, like Phrase Finder, but as a bonus:

  • "“Chinese Whispers” - A reflection on language and turning down old phrases"
  • Phil Wang's book excerpt in The Times [1] refers to "Chinese virus" as Template:Tqq
  • Phil Wang quoted in The Guardian [2]: Template:Tqq

  Bottom line: it doesn't have to be overtly racist; as between a title that is maybe racist, and a title that is not at all racist, I'll choose the latter. Levivich (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move, as per the argument of Levivich

Irruptive Creditor (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move, based on sources quoted above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support move – Common name varies regionally, so let's settle on one that doesn't sound racist or cringeworthy ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Talk:Chinese whispers/Archive 1#Let's close the name issue. As noted more sources use "Chinese whispers" than "telephone/telephone game", the term is less ambiguous and as noted in May 2021 the first major contributor used British English so WP:RETAIN applies. In England no one would probably know what "telephone game" is as I've never heard it used we use the term "Chinese whispers" as a metaphor when rumours are spread. Yes we don't want to appear to be racist but I've never heard anyone in England think its racist (except maybe when I asked someone a few years ago due to the previous discussion which I don't think they said yes anway) and as noted the name may come from the Great Wall of China. Are names like Chinese wall also offensive? If it was terms like Scottish whispers or Australian whispers we might find them offensive but in Chinese they probably won't be especially if they were to come from a source that isn't to do with the language. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Crouch: uh... Template:Tq is not equivalent to 'this is not racist/this does not sound racist'. And as an Australian of Chinese descent, sure, I don't encounter 'telephone game' very often, but I do die a little inside whenever I hear terms like 'Chinese whispers' or 'Chinese wall' used without question, and why on earth do you think it's less offensive than 'Scottish whispers' or 'Australian whispers'? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell I was using "Australian" and "Scottish" as examples, these terms are not in common usage AFAIK in Chinese (I don't speak Chinese so I don't know) but if these were common in Chinese they wouldn't nessesarrily have to use a different term if it was common usage in Chinese even if some Chinese people though using Austrlian or Scottish was offensive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• • • • Crouch: Why are you even bringing up Chinese-language usage? This discussion is about an Template:Em that a fair number of Template:Em find offensive. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
        • Just for examples but as noted "Chinese whispers" doesn't appear to be offensive in England and we wouldn't understand what "telephone game" is so per WP:RETAIN we don't change it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Worth pointing out that there is no way "Chinese Whispers" is about the intelligibility of the Chinese language. The entire point of the metaphor, or the game as its played, is how completely understandable language can me misconstrued or forgotten when one person passes it to another. The more people you pass it on to - the more garbled the message becomes. The game breaks completely if what is said is unintelligible. For this reason the suggestion that the name "Chinese Whispers", used in much of the English speaking world, is because of The Great Wall of China, and communication between its towers, makes the most sense as a physical representation of the problem that people would recognise. Everyone has heard of the Great Wall of China - it's one of the most famous structures on the planet. It's surely an actual demonstration about what would happen if for some reason they could not simply write down a message. 82.35.211.196 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose your argument for moving it involves showing sources that clearly demonstrate it as the common name. The term is also more precise, there's only one game known as Chinese whispers but 'telephone game' can refer to multiple things. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle:

Template:Tqq

Template:Tqq

Template:Tqq

Template:Tqq

Template:Tqq

Which of these clearly demonstrate "Chinese whispers" as the common name?

What other notable topics does "Telephone game" refer to? Levivich (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's just for the United States and Canada. It's known as Chinese whispers in every other English speaking country.

Aside from the hat note you can see with Google Trends that the searches for 'telephone game' have nothing to do with Chinese whispers: [3]. Telephone game itself should probably be a disambiguation with mobile phone game rather than a redirect here, let alone the main title. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not just for the US and Canada; it's also at least Australia (according to the Australian source above), and according to another source above, "Chinese whispers" is only popular in Britain. US+Canada+Australia = 400 million people; UK = 67 million people. The sources say that "Telephone" is more common than "Chinese whispers," and per capita, by a factor of 6x.

As for Telephone game (game theory), that was the article that was created during one of the RMs by someone opposed to moving this to "Telephone" on the grounds of ambiguity. Manufactured ambiguity. The idea that the obscure game theory example would be mistaken for the common children's game is absurd. Levivich (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely known as Chinese whispers in Australia still and you've ignored other Commonwealth countries.

Should we move The Nigger of the "Narcissus" to the less racist The Children of the Sea or A Tale of the Sea? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Do you have any RS saying it's known as Chinese whispers outside of Britain? Levivich (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, the source you cited above says Template:Tq. Europe has a population of 746.4 million (with most of the population scoring above 52 proficiency points, thus moderately proficient in English, per English language in Europe) and North America has a population of 579 million. "Europeans might" in the sentence is synonymous with "Although Europeans" because of the "but" in the next part of the sentence. So the source you cited establishes 'Chinese whispers' as more widely used. Svampesky (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move I think one could argue for either term being the common name (although personally I never heard of it by this name until today, and I grew up in a time and place where casual racism was prevelant). Between the two choices, using the obviously not racist one seems best, while continuing to mention the other name in the article text. Mistakes were made in the naming of things in the past, and although we aren't here to right great wrongs we have a choice here, so why not make the right choice? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal has been made several times before without success and so repeating it once again is vexatious. The claim that it's racist is absurd as Chinese is a language/culture/country, not a race. What's really at work here is Americanism - Americans insisting that we have to do things their way, contrary to WP:ENGVAR. There are plenty of other traditional games named in this way such as British bulldog, Chinese checkers, Double Dutch, French cricket, Hopscotch, Pig Latin, etc. The article has been stable at this title for many years and so WP:RETAIN applies, as before. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Wow, "you can't be racist against Chinese people" was not on my spurious arguments bingo card. Funny that we have an entire article about it then. Also interesting that you are assigning motivations not in evidence to other users. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is purely an ENGVAR issue and we also have an article anti-British sentiment too. There's no pressure to change the title of Chinese checkers because that's familiar in US English. That game was actually invented in Germany but the Chinese branding was invented in the US.

  For another example, see Chinese burn. That's the name familiar to children in Britain but the article is titled Indian burn because that's the name familiar in the US. The etymologies for these names are obscure because they are generated in an organic way in playgrounds and only enter adult literature later. The claims that it's racist are fanciful false etymology like the complaints about words like "crowbar" and "picnic".

  Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh for Pete's sake, "Chinese checkers" isn't derogatory like "Chinese whispers." The whole reason it's called "Chinese whispers" is because of -- as the sources quoted above say -- the stereotype that Chinese people are incomprehensible or inscrutable. "Chinese checkers" doesn't carry that connotation. It's amazing how you weigh the considerations at play here: on the one hand, a derogatory stereotype vs. on the other hand, that's how it's always been called in my country! 🙄 Levivich (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell We don't know if the name comes from this, as noted in 2021 the name may come from the Great Wall of China, I see now reason to change based on common usage and ambiguity as well as WP:RETAIN. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever you may think about "Chinese Whispers" using the same argument for "Chinese Checkers" is valid. Arguably "Chinese Checkers" is far more offensive, as it is a German game taken to the USA and has nothing to do with China - in fact its a rename of the game “Hop Ching Checkers” which was a made up Chinese sounding title that would certainly NOT be used today. Whatever background the USA might have with East Asia is very different to the UK where "Oriental" is not at all racist (its similar to "Western" in use) and "Asian" is exclusively used for people from South West Asia. It is hard to imagine "Chinese Whispers" being generally offensive. We are all equally joined yet separated by language and you can overthink these things. Though the final bottom line is - is everyone in China offended? If yes - lets stop using the term. In the meantime the word "Chinese" is positive by default because how could it be otherwise? Dreadfulscathe (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support alternate move to Telephone (game) as it was in 2020, not because I am necessarily convinced the current name is offensive, but because there's an equally common name that is completely inoffensive, so there's no apparent reason to leave it here, nor was there an apparent reason to move it in the first place from that name. I oppose Telephone game for the same reasons as in 2020, it can refer to any game played using a telephone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I support a move to Telephone (game) as an alt. Either that or Telephone game works for me. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I acknowledge that both terms are recognizable enough to considered the common name (First amendment: per others, 'telephone game' is not the common name everywhere and the term is too ambiguous for those not familiar it) when talking about/referencing the game, but 'Chinese whispers' as a metaphor conveys a singular meaning. In biology and network science, 'Chinese whispers' is used as an analogy for imperfect transmission. On the other hand, the term 'telephone game' is too ambiguous, as it is associated with different etymologies when used; such as game theory where the etymology is "a telephone call was cut off then the caller would redial". I do also believe it's a stretch to suggest that 'telephone game' could ever refer to a mobile phone game. Second amendment: Another game called 'telephone game' has a completely different setup. José Melis and The Tonight Show Band, Template:Tq. Is something less ambiguous than 'telephone game' that can be considered as an option in this move request? Third amendment: On JSTOR, "Chinese whispers" returns 632 results; "Telephone game" returns 226 results. 'Chinese whispers' is the common name on JSTOR by about threefold. Svampesky (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC); Amendments: 11:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC); 14:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC); 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not even a stretch. If you look at the Google data for the search it's quite clear a lot of people searching for 'telephone game' are looking for things other than Chinese whispers. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think my !vote might have been poorly worded. The term 'telephone game' is commonly used to refer to this specific game when naming this specific game as much as 'Chinese whispers' is used. However, in a broader context, the term 'telephone game' is too ambiguous. Every metaphorical derivative of 'Chinese whispers' originates from this game, whereas not every metaphorical derivative of the 'telephone game' comes from it, making the former less ambiguous. Svampesky (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it was poorly worded. I was just pointing out that 'telephone game' referring to mobile phone games isn't a stretch and is a common search term evidently. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support Telephone game, per nom. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Telephone game (first preference) or Telephone (game) (2nd preference). Both Google Trends and Ngrams indicate that telephone game is the more common term globally (and also that "telephone game" is a common term, hence my preference towards the natural form). Ngrams even indicates that the use of "Chinese whispers" may be declining in British English literature specifically, though less conclusively: [4] I'm primarily swayed by Levivich's argument, though; when choosing between two valid terms, one of which clearly carries racial implications and the other does not, we should prefer the neutral term. This has nothing to do with ENGVAR, as it should apply regardless of where the racially insensitive term is used (and indeed, American English has quite the collection of racially insensitive language itself). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you actually look at the trends data it's quite obvious a lot of the searches are not related to Chinese whispers. The top related queries are about 'gartic' which is an unrelated game. Ngrams can't distinguish between telephone game (Chinese whispers) and other uses of telephone game. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Related queries" are not always necessarily related; by the same argument you're making here, people searching for "Chinese whispers" potentially intended to search for Fearless Whispers (indeed, some might have; we cannot know). Also, Gartic Phone is an online version of Telephone Pictionary, which itself is a variant of this game (that second link redirects to this article). Calling it fully unrelated is a stretch; it's calling itself a "telephone game" because that's a well recognized and common name for the subject of this article. Neither Ngrams or Trends are perfect, but it's not obvious to me in any way that the data should be preferentially discounted, especially as you've neglected to provide any evidence to the contrary. I stand by the accuracy of my comment. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Related queries are other terms the same people searched for. Fearless Whispers doesn't actually appear in the results, so no we can be certain that isn't the case.

  >Telephone Pictionary, which itself is a variant of this game (that second link redirects to this article).

  Which makes 'telephone game' an even more vague term with multiple definitions? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  At the time of posting, "Fearless Whispers" is first under rising and 24th under top related queries for "Chinese whispers"—the exact same position I see "gartic phone" for "telephone game". Related queries change quickly, so it's possible you saw something else (though I'm still seeing those results), but I didn't pull it out of thin air. Meanwhile, do you actually have sources using the phrase "telephone game" to mean mobile game or any other distinct and different term? I can't find any evidence of anyone doing so, and the results I get for searching telephone game on both Google and Bing don't suggest that happens with any regularity. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Telephone game (game theory) is an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  So is Chinese Whispers (novella). In neither case is the primary topic in question. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Accoring to Amazon, this is a novel about a game of Chinese whispers. Chinese Whispers (poetry collection), according to London Review Bookshop, is a concept poetry book where each poem undergoes a slight alteration until the book reaches the end. This clearly establishes 'Chinese whispers' as a metaphor with a singular origin. 'Telephone game' is more ambiguous as it is associated with different etymologies when used metaphorically. Svampesky (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly a book about Chinese whispers being named Chinese whispers means the term is as vague as 'telephone game' is. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  That book is almost 40 years old. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Your point being? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  40 years is a long time, during which things change. Levivich (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  And what has changed here? Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  At this point you're just pretending you don't know. Template:Tqq [5] Template:Tq [6] Levivich (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  This wasn't even what was being discussed, but seriously Yahoo lifestyle...? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  The first one is News.com.au. And for an article about a game, especially for how it is perceived today, yes, lifestyle journalism like Yahoo! Lifestyle. Levivich (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was discussing which term is more vague. You've rehashed an old argument we've already both gone over. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  You want to use the derogatory title because it's less vague... Levivich (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Dylnuge I've just recanted my ngrams search because I've realized there was a mistake in it, and you probably will have to as well. Chinese needs to be capitalized and both of our searches failed to click 'case-insensitive'. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems to be no good evidence that the origin of the name involves offensive racial slurs. Rather, people are supposedly taking offence just because others might conceive that the origin involves racism. It's analogous to right-on objections to "manhole" (from Latin manus, a hand) or "niggardly" (from Middle English nigon). At the very worst, the only potential racist implication is that foreigners with their own very different language are liable to be incomprehensible to English-speakers, which I think nobody can deny is often true. Would you really mind at all if the Chinese called the game "English whispers"? As a Brit, I only know the game as "Chinese whispers"; I would not understand "telephone game". Wikipedia should respect and reflect usage, not evangelise. JMCHutchinson (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not analogous to your other examples at all, unless you think the name is derived from the Middle English chynen or something (it isn't). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would add that, although it is true that "niggardly" is provably not an overtly racist term, its use has gone out of favor nonetheless just because it certainly sounds racist and there are plenty of synonyms that don't have that problem. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Can you not apply your experience in America as if it were a global thing? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Support as the common name, I've never heard of this game called anything else but telephone. We shouldn't give primacy to a select few countries where this is called Chinese whispers. Framing the move proposal around racism accusations set the wrong tone for this dicussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs)

So instead of giving primary to a select few countries we should instead give it to the US and Canada? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not from either of those countries and we use telephone for the game's name. Killuminator (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move to Telephone (game) (first choice) or Telephone game (second choice). I've always known the game as simply "telephone", not "telephone game" or "the telephone game" and certainly not "Chinese whispers". Yes, there are a few countries where the game has at least historically been called "Chinese whispers", but even those countries are slowly switching how they call it, and I think that they have changed enough to make this unambiguous already, where many people in those countries would probably recognize "telephone", perhaps only "telephone" but more likely at this point in addition to "Chinese whispers", while on the other hand, my experience suggests that many people from countries where the game has historically been called "telephone" would not recognize "Chinese whispers", considering I would not have before today. Also, I think that Telephone (game) would be better at disambiguating from other subjects than Telephone game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Nobody in the UK calls it the Telephone Game or Telephone! We record facts; we do not censor for what some may regard as racism (but which many do not). The name does not Template:Tq What it implies is that most English-speaking people do not understand Chinese people. The joke is on us, not them. Personally, as a native English-speaker, I'm not offended by it! But then, unlike many these days, I have a sense of humour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  That rationale might make sense if it were called "British ears." This has nothing to do with ENGVAR as this isn't a British game. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course the rationale makes sense. WP:RETAIN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  RETAIN is the weakest of all arguments. Because someone decided to move this article like 20 years ago, we should keep this racist title forever? Come on. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, RETAIN is generally considered to be a very strong argument at RM. And, once again, you may think it's racist, but others do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just me who thinks it's racist, it's also the authors of this Oxford book; this paper; articles in News.com.au, The Chronicle, Yahoo! Lifestyle, and HuffPost; and these fans of MasterChef, among others. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  As I'm sure you're aware, you can always find someone who'll be offended by anything. So what? That doesn't give you or them primacy over me or others who do not consider it to be racist. It's a classic "I'm right because [I think] I've got the moral high ground" argument. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  shit white people say 😂 That was a really cringey comment. FYI: it's racist because it's a derogatory stereotype about Chinese people. As between something that's maybe racist and something that's not, you should prefer the one that's not. Levivich (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Seems an easy answer. I think the rational to keep a racist because that's what people grew up with a bit weak. Plus Telephone is the common name over here, never heard Chinese Whispers. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Again, you're claiming it's racist without any basis other than "I think it is"! And per WP:RETAIN, so what if you've never heard it called this? This isn't Americanopedia. I'd never heard of "Telephone" before this whole debate started either; in Britain, we've always called it Chinese whispers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Most of the sources we've looked at on this page agree it's racist. Also, it's called "Chinese whispers", which is pretty strong evidence of same. Who cares what it's called in Britain? That's only 67 million English speakers out of over a billion worldwide. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    On JSTOR, "Chinese whispers" returns 632 results; "Telephone game" returns 226 results. On Google Scholar, "Chinese whispers" returns 8,500 results and "Telephone game" returns 2,900 results. On both Google Scholar and JSTOR, 'Chinese whispers' more common by about threefold. Svampesky (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    That doesn't mean anything. See WP:HITS. Among other reasons, it doesn't give us any information about current usage v. historical usage. The hits aren't necessarily RS (even at GS and JSTOR). Levivich (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Filtering the search on JSTOR to English-language academic journals published after 2018, "Chinese whispers" and "Telephone game" still returns around three times more usage of 'Chinese whispers'. Svampesky (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    "Game of telephone" gets more hits though. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Template:Tq, this is false. Europeans who learn English as a second language generally learn British English. Australian English and Indian English are closer (if not almost the same) to British English. Svampesky (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    We're not talking about British English, we're talking about in Britain. The Australian news source quotes above says "Chinese whispers" is derogatory and that it's mostly called "Telephone game", for example. Levivich (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Chinese whispers is still the common name in Australia and the Google data supports that. The article you've linked to support it is a lifestyle column, not exactly a reliable source for, well anything... Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Do you know of an RS saying Chinese whispers is the common name in Australia? Levivich (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    The Chronicle article you linked to is a list of 'common' expressions and phrases used in Australia. Also this OED entry says where it is used [7] compared to their entry for telephone which states it is North American: [8] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    That Chronicle article is entitled "these overused expressions have racist origins". It's not just "common" expressions. The OED says "is used," not "is commonly used" or "is most commonly used" or "is more commonly used than..." Levivich (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Are you really going to be this petty? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    I don't think there's anything petty about not using a racist term as a title when we have another non-racist term available. Levivich (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    The etymology section of the article cites "'THE LUCK OF A CHINAMAN': IMAGES OF THE CHINESE IN POPULAR AUSTRALIAN SAYINGS from the Institute of Advanced Studies Australian National University: Template:Tq. Svampesky (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    That article is over 30 years old (1992). For more recent sources that say this is racist and has fallen out of favor, see above. Levivich (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Source, singular. You have one source for the claim it is no longer the common name and it is a lifestyle column. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Also, that entire article is about racist things Australians say, of which "Chinese whispers" is given as an example. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    Template:Tq And there we have it, clear confirmation that the nominator does not believe in one of Wikipedia's cornerstones: that no one variety of English should be considered primary over another. And also does not understand that British English often extends further than the UK in any case. It's also called Chinese whispers in Commonwealth countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    That was kind of my point with my comment. You used, as part of your rational, that you never heard of it being called telephone. But here you are saying the same argument does not work the other way. It's kind of silly. PackMecEng (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    You misunderstand. My point was that WP:RETAIN says that we should retain the variety of English in which the article was originally written (in any stable form). That's British English. Your argument appeared to be that because Template:Tq (wherever "over here" may be) that should be the title of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    WP:RETAIN says it should be kept "Template:Tq". It doesn't say consensus can never be formed to change it, it says consensus must be established before doing so...and that's sorta the whole point of this discussion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

    There isn't a good reason to change it, the name "Chinese whispers" is less ambiguous and more common which RETAIN allows moves to less ambiguous titles as an exception even ignoring what was noted in 2021 that it used British English at the time it was expanded. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. This has been discussed as nauseam previously, and it's very simple: WP:RETAIN demands that we stick with the prevailing variety of English and not switch to another variety of English when both are acceptable. However much "support" this proposal gets, the move is not permitted. Not entertaining arguments such as this one is one of the reasons why English speakers of different culture and dialects have been coexisting and building the encyclopedia collaboratively for all these years.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Template:Tqq And you characterize that as Template:Tqq. This discussion is about whether both are acceptable, and whether there is consensus to the contrary. Speedy close an RM that is passing 11-7? That would be overturned on appeal. I'm rather shocked this vote is coming from you, Amakuru. Levivich (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, though Telephone (game) preferred. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support either Telephone game or Telephone (game). As Wikipedia:Article titles explains, there are several different goals in article naming, and figuring out how to balance them and what name to go with is Template:Tq, and consensus is achieved through discussion, which is what's happening here, so there is no need to dismiss the move discussion on its face.Template:PbOn what to call the article, while "Chinese whispers" is a historical name, it's one of several, and sources like  News.com.au note that contemporaneously Template:Tq.Template:PbWP:ENGVAR has been cited in this and other discussions as a reason to , but it should be considered alongside WP:TITLEVAR which notes that favoring a regional variety of English may be appropriate [i]Template:Tq (emphasis added). However, the topic is international in its scope and isn't relevant to just one English-speaking nation, so WP:ENGVAR/WP:TITLEVAR/MOS:TIES does not cleanly apply. "Telephone game" has been called an "Americanism", but the aforementioned Australian news source indicates the term is used internationally.Template:PbFinally, while English Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia, it's also an international encyclopedia. Having an article titled using outdated racist terminology is disruptive, and I'm inclined to agree with OP that given the choice between an article title that at worst is racist and at best is maybe racist versus an article title that is neutral, descriptive, and recognized in multiple countries, it better serves Wikipedia's purposes, policies, and guidlines—from the Universal Code of Conduct to our title conventions—to move the article to the name Telephone game or Telephone (game). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Its not a historical name in British English, as both me and Necrothesp have said we've never heard it called "telephone". Telephone isn't an international name given its not used in all countries, we in England (and probably other Commonwealth countries) wouldn't recognize "telephone". The game doesn't have close ties to America (or any other country that uses "telephone") so we shouldn't change it from one regional name to another per RETAIN when "Chinese whispers" was the 1st non stub version and the title since 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you suppose you speak for all British people? Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean anything. You are not a reliable source. You have no idea whether people in England would recognize "telephone game". Have you taken a poll? And more to the point: don't you care one whit that a lot of people think it's racist? Even if you don't, others clearly do. Does this not factor into your thinking at all? I mean, you're seriously arguing that, on the one hand, a lot of people think it's racist, but on the other hand, somebody created a stub in 2006 and this is the name they chose, so we should retain it. How can you reconcile such a view in your head? Do you just not care if people think it's racist? What it was called in 2006 is more important to you than that?? How can you be so callous? Particularly given England's history of colonization and such, including in China... how does none of that seemingly matter to you? This title invokes derogatory stereotypes of Chinese people: please, give a damn. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't speak for all British people but neither do the American (or similar) people who have supported moving who also claim never to have heard of "Chinese whispers". Interestingly at Talk:Chinese whispers/Archive 1#Comments on move there was a suggestion that "Chinese whispers" is used in American English. If the term was really thought to be problematic its likely PC people in England would have at least tried to phase it out, the fact its still the only term that we appear to understand is a good indication its not thought of as offensive. As I've said no one that I know of has even thought its stereotyping Chinese people or similar, its just what we call it. By the same lodgic is Chinese wall offensive? Given that that may have similar origins such as from the Great Wall of China. The policy is clear that this is what we should call it per the 2006 non stub title just like we don't move Color to Colour or Orange (colour) to Orange (color). RETAIN has 2 exceptions to allow ENGVAR changes, the 1st being what the topic has stong ties to a variety which doesn't apply as the game has no ties to either American or British English, the 2nd exception is when the change reduces ambiguity which quite possible does apply here since as noted in the 2020 discussion there are lots of games involving telephones. WP:NATURAL says Template:Tq This argument may be a bit weak for Telephone game given it does still redirect here but as noted people have expressed concern of its ambiguity. NATURAL does support "Chinese whisper" over "Telephone (game)" even if "telephone" was slightly more common so in conclusion both RETAIN and NATURAL favour keeping this article with the current title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support move. I find the rationale incredibly convincing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  I also agree with Dylnuge's and Hydrangeans comments above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Telephone (game) - Contra to Jmchutchinson and Necrothesp, I never knew "Chinese whispers" to be a name of this game at all until being made aware that this discussion was happening. Dylnuge also makes a great point re: RETAIN and consensus. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the points that when we have two common names, where one is racist and the other is not, there should be clear preference for the nonracist term. WP:ENGVAR also makes little sense when telephone game is by far the most used term in British English. _{Made a mistake here and forgot to turn on case-insensitive for the results, please ignore this point. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 02:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)} ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd expect the reason there may be more results for "Telephone game" than "Chinese whispers" is probably simply because of the far greater ambiguity of the former. As noted at Talk:Chinese whispers/Archive 1#Requested move 28 October 2020 the term "Chinese whispers" seems to be 30% more common. FOARP noted that they can but this down as an "oppose" !vote for future RMs but I won't ping them due to canvasing but I think the points still stand. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. WP:UCRN says "Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." In another words, it's perfectly fine to move this page away from a racist title. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Chinese whispers isn't vulgarity. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Insofar as journalistic sources call the phrase "racist" and a "negative stereotype", and multiple users have concurred that it's racist and derogatory toward Chinese people and language, it seems reasonable to say that the phrase "Chinese whispers" is vulgar, i. e. "offensive in language" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary); see also "not polite or socially acceptable" (Cambridge Dictionary). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  Vulgar on the WP:UCRN page links to Vulgarism instead of Vulgar. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support. It's [insert current year here], people! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:52, 22 August 2024 (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.

Post-move title disambiguation

@Tamzin, thanks again for the close. The point about speedy disambiguation renomination, Template:Tq is where we're at. Since I opposed the title 'Telephone game' due to its ambiguity (it sounds like a game played on a telephone, or a telephone game), it would feel inappropriate for me to immediately renominate a move away from the title I opposed. The suggestion I have for disambiguation renomination is Telephone (whispering game). I use Chopsticks (hand game) as an example for 'Telephone (game)' also being ambiguous. 'Chopsticks (game)' would sound like a game played with chopsticks and '(hand game)' provides more clarity to the reader. The disambiguator on Tennis (paper-and-pencil game) provides the same clarity to the reader, particularly as some opposers (and a supporter) noted that 'Telephone' is a completely unrecognizable name for this game in some places. Svampesky (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Without expressing a preference, it's worth considering WP:PRECISE. It's clear why the tennis example can't be at Template:-r. Template:-r redirects to Chopsticks (hand game), which is nonstandard but maybe there's a good reason for. At a minimum, I know titles like Foo (John Doe song) routinely get moved to drop the artist name if they're the only notable song with that title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is based on MOS:COMMONALITY, with significant amount of the opposition to this title (over the years) stems from its lack of recognizability, so the title arguably isn't precise enough. Take board games, titles with common words, such as Planetarium (board game), Indigo (board game), or Deception (board game), 'board' serves as a qualifier, while board games with uncommon words, such as Seega (game), Symple (game), or Tobit (game) simply use 'game', as there would be less ambiguity. Svampesky (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Close discussion moved to section below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Tamzin for the close and Svampesky for bringing up disambiguation. As I noted earlier, I don't think we can identify a single name recognised throughout the Anglosphere, whether "Telephone" or the other one. Telephone (whispering game) feels like it would satisfy both WP:COMMON and WP:PRECISE in that (hypothetically speaking) if I were to refer to "telephone, that old whispering game", someone here in Australia is likely to make the connection. Alternatively, Telephone (party game) would align it with its listing in Party game and its associated category. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@ClaudineChionh, you're welcome! Telephone (whispering game) is still my preference for disambiguation. 'Telephone (party game)' might suggest something like prank calling, which I can reliably source as a party activity [9]. My main concern is RETAINing the -our and -ise spelling ('unrecognisable', 'rumours', et cetera) in the article. This is why I set the ENGVAR as Australian, per Levivich's sourcing of Australian usage in the RM and the first post-stub version logically meeting at AusEng. Should the participants in the RM all be courtesy pinged? Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of close

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell I don't at the moment intend to start a MR at the moment as it may be considered bad forum given I started the last one but I think you should reconsider you're close. In terms of you're point about RETAIN I appreciate you have mentioned but I do not think there is a sufficent consensus here, rather if anything at least globally the opposite. As I pointed out in this RM it was noted at Talk:Telephone game/Archive 1#Let's close the name issue that the term "Chinese whispers" is 30% more common, yes I know people stated in both RMs that statistics show "Telephone game" etc as being more common but as was noted that's because the term telephone game is far more ambiguous and as noted many of the results aren't even for this game. RETAIN even noted about using a different national variant due to ambiguity which I think points at the issue in this section that the titles are ambiguous and its not obvious which is preferable while "Chinese whispers" is unambiguous. Therefore I think we can say that "Chinese whispers" and "Telephone game" (or "Telephone (game)") are not one of two otherwise equally-appropriate titles. The former appears to be more common and is less ambiguous. Yes I sympathise with the arguments that the term "Chinese whispers" may appear racist to people who don't use the term but as noted at the "Let's close the name issue" section the origin of the name is not known and could be from the Great Wall of China. Therefore I don't consider it a correct close to put more weight on the apparent racist issue which isn't really supported by our policies than the common usage and ambiguity points that are. Could you please change you close to "no consensus" thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you (and others who agreed) pretty clearly expressed this view during the RM, and I count 18 editors who don't concur and 8 (including you) who do. It's not a vote but it should be clear that many experienced editors were aware of and unswayed by the ambiguity argument. How can 70% support in a highly attended move discussion not indicate a consensus? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So, by my count it's 18 to 7 or 8 depending how you count RoySmith. While discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, overturning that wide a margin would need an exceptionally strong difference in argument quality favoring the minority position. The close acknowledges that, setting aside the matter of actual or perceived racism, either Telephone game (or variant) or Chinese whispers would be a reasonable title per MOS:ENGVAR. Which version is more used globally is not the determining factor per guidelines, except when there's a "universally accepted term" (MOS:COMMONALITY). It is, yes, one factor that editors are allowed to cite, and is accorded a certain amount of weight. The perception that a term is racist is another factor that editors are allowed to cite, and is also accorded a certain amount of weight. And in this case, you're the only person, as far as I can tell, who made that 30%-more-common argument. A number of oppose arguments consisted just of "This is the term I use / term I've always heard", a very low-weight argument (granted, made a few times on the support side too, but I down-weighted those as well), or "It's not factually racist", which only partly addresses the problem that many readers are likely to take the term as racist.Template:PbSo no, there is not an exceptional contrast in argument quality in favor of the oppose side, and if anything the opposite. Editors are allowed to reverse an ENGVAR status quo by talkpage consensus, and a supermajority of participants exercised that right here. But you are absolutely welcome to take the matter to MR. I don't think your having opened the last MR should make you feel like you can't. I would encourage you, though, to try to read through this discussion as if you didn't have an opinion, and ask yourself if there's any way that the oppose arguments could be so strong as to overcome a >2:1 headcount. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I believe RETAIN is an invalid argument to retain 'Chinese whispers'. The first English variant word in the first post-stub version is 'neighbours', (which is unrelated, but mildly interesting because), what is the indication that this version was specifically British English and not Australian English, if the title and first name in the introduction was 'telephone game'? Svampesky (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell This is about moving from "Chinese whispers" to "Telephone game" not the other way round so the question is about if the support side has made a stronger case. Generally the support side has to make the stronger case, if it was the other way round a "no consensus" which would also result in not moving the page would be appropriate IMO. Common usage is normally how we decide titles, see WP:COMMONNAME, I'd note that Svampesky provided evidence of "Chinese whispers" being 3x more common which I think may be an understatement given many results for telephone game (as noted in this and the 2020 discussion) aren't even for this game. In addition to this even assuming Svampesky's point just above that we assume it was written in Australian English WP:RETAIN allows such moves due to ambiguity "the change reduces ambiguity" which WP:NATURAL says "Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so Elevator is the title of the article on the lifting device.". In other words because "Telephone" is ambiguous we should use the alternative "Chinese whispers" which as noted actually seems to be more common, yes as noted I accept that both "Telephone game" and "Telephone (game)" do go here in terms of primacy which makes this argument weak though. Its possibly some of the hits for "Chinese whispers" could be older in countries that no longer use the term but I think its more likely many results for "Telephone game" or similar aren't for this game. Consider for example when assessing if "Barrow" or "Utqiagvik" was more common for the city in Alaska we couldn't take hits for "Barrow" v hits for "Utqiagvik" because many hits for "Barrow" won't be for the city in Alaska because there are other places and generic meanings called "Barrow". Therefore I think even if the article was created/expanded at "Telephone game" or similar there would be a valid reason to break RETAIN due to common usage and ATDAB but the reverse is less so and as noted while the racist point is understandable, it probably comes under WP:RGW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The burden was met, Crouch, Swale. Reasonable arguments were made to move, and about 70% of your colleagues agreed with them. Unless they had extraordinarily faulty reasoning (like if they'd all said "Well I've only ever heard 'telephone game'") or were objectively wrong about some fact (like they all thought we were talking about Chinese people whispering into telephones), no reasonable closer is going to rule against that supermajority. That isn't just a strength-in-numbers thing: It's something of an insult to approach a group of editors in good standing and say "You all analyzed the policy and guideline and common-sense considerations here and overwhelmingly came down one way, but I've decided I know better and you're wrong". Sure, there are occasions where such an insult is necessary—I once did it when it was clear that most respondents to an RfC had misread the question—but in the vast majority of cases it's a SUPERVOTE to do so.Template:PbYou are welcome to think that consensus was wrong here. It does not follow from that, though, that the consensus was not the consensus. But if you do still feel I erred in my closure, again, feel free to take this to MRV. I have nothing else to say here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Let me be clear: I oppose the move, but I fully support Tamzin's close and I fully support the community consensus. Move review is about reviewing closes, and I see no issue with the RM close. I maintain that 'Chinese whispers' is 3x more common, but the community has reached a consensus that prioritizes other aspects of titling this article. The consensus is: 'Not-Chinese-whispers', so the community can move forward with finding the correct disambiguator. Svampesky (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Repeating myself from above, if the 3x figure comes from Jstor, adding in "game of telephone"—the canonical phrase to my ear—makes telephone look the more common. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell As WP:RMNOMIN says "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Remember, the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments.". As WP:TITLECHANGES says "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.". Why does the community need to move onto finding the correct disambiguator when the previous one did that fine? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good thing this move request was not out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy. WP:COMMONNAME: Template:Tqq Even if one grants that "Chinese whispers" is the most common name, it has problems, so we chose one of the others. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich for pointing to Template:Tq, I wasn't aware of this passage before. @Crouch, Swale, the Template:Tq were made clear in the RM and the community prioritized them. Svampesky (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell Multiple editors of which some were those supporting using "Telephone" or similar expressed concern about the ambiguity, even if "Telephone" (or similar) was the most common term (which I doubt it is) we can choose "Chinese whispers" per WP:NATURAL which WP:RETAIN allows due to "Telephone" or similar having problems which as I've said is weak but still valid. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Crouch: I am really starting to wonder why you are protesting so much. Every other Oppose !voter has either followed up with constructive feedback or simply moved on from this debate. Why is this so important to you? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Because we don't generally make such moves between variants of English. If the name is apparently racist then why don't you have a problem with Chinese wall (similar name with probably same origins) or Blackburn? Why are you not suggesting moving these articles? It seems the main problem here is not respecting the national variants of English. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Chinese wall" is a reference to the Great Wall of China. Calling the Great Wall of China or other walls a "Chinese wall" is not racist because it's not derogatory. Blackburn is the name of a town in England; we'll change the name of the article if and when they change the name of the town. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There are apparently some concerns about "Chinese wall" being an insensitive term, so maybe Crouch, Swale is right and we should start a Request Move for that article, especially when "ethical wall" seems like a much more natural term that a reader new to the idea will understand.Template:PbWhy Crouch, Swale brings up Blackburn, though, is much less clear. There's no apparent racial epithet in the etymology of Blackburn, which makes me think that Crouch, Swale brings it up out of an apparent belief that what users object to is mere reference to anything that sounds like race (in the case of Blackburn, "Black"), which given all the explaining that's happened in this talk page is a surprising lack of recognition of why people have taken issue with the term "Chinese whispers" (not simply that it makes reference to Chineseness but rather that it does so in a derogatory way. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Crouch: Who said I didn't have a problem with "Chinese wall"? If there is momentum for reviewing that name, let's take it to that page. But I don't see you bringing any new arguments to this discussion so I think it's time for me to unsubscribe. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm late to this, but it is hard to see whether even a single GB-EN article-title would remain if the standard applied here were applied generally. FOARP (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I find it hard to believe the implication (howsoever unintentional) that every article title that follows a British English naming convention is rooted in derogatory Sinophobic racism. An article title like finishing school (rather than the American term "charm school") seems like it's going to be fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have similar concerns. My concern is that there are more American English speakers on Wikipedia, so will outnumber the discussions. In this case, the title was changed due to Template:Tq and the consensus was met (and I support that the consensus was met). WP:RETAIN says Template:Tq. I believe it could be workshopped to be amended to state that the 'consensus' must to be based on clear and strong policy concerns, in order to prevent minority dialects being outnumbered in discussions. Svampesky (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Chinese whispers" being a racist term that secondary sources say has fallen out of fashion in multiple countries in favor of "telephone game" is a clear and strong concern based on policies and guidelines. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that, which is why I support that the consensus was met in this instance. I have a general concern that minority English dialects are likely to be outnumbered in discussions, and that the RETAIN Template:Tq could be workshopped to be based on clear and strong policy concerns—and not just any consensus. The move to 'Telephone game' met this, as it was based on clear and strong policy concerns. Svampesky (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell I think we need to look at getting this moved back. I think its ridiculous that we would choose a name that is (1) less common (WP:COMMONNAME, (2) more ambiguous (WP:ATDAB) and (3) has never been used in parts of the world while the previous name at the very least has been used and does appear still at least sometimes in Australia (WP:COMMONALITY). As was said in the previous RM "We do not default to American English if an article has no close ties to any variety of English just because America has lots of people and a large internet presence". Clearly our PAG favour "Chinese whispers" even if more people using American English happened to come to the discussion. Clearly we should favour using a more common, less ambiguous name rather than a name that only some parts of the world have ever used. FOARP if you want to file a MR you could but as I stated I won't as I filed the previous one. Also I did wonder when you would come to the discussion and hoped you would see the RM but I didn't ping you because it would be seen as canvassing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose renomination of move; support workshopping the WP:RETAIN Template:Tq to be based on clear and strong policy concerns—and not just any consensus—in order to prevent minority English dialects being outnumbered in discussions. Drop me a message on my user talk page if anyone's interested in workshopping on this, I'm not sure if it should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Svampesky (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Template:Tq: Except cited secondary sources say telephone game is used in Australia. An Austalian news source, News.com.au, even said it's Template:Tq.Template:PbTemplate:Tq: No, our policies and guidelines don't lend special favor to "Chinese whispers" as an article title. There was consensus in the RM discussion that our policies and guidelines guide us to prefer an article title that isn't racist when the not-racist article title does the job just fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: Let me make it clear that I oppose the move, but I endorse the close. The consensus was met and was based on clear and strong policy concerns—Template:Tq—and wasn't just any consensus. Changing from British English to Australian English was a meet-in-the-middle approach I took to retain the -our spellings, which I believe is a decent compromise on both camps. Svampesky (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It was a lifestyle column, hardly a great source for linguistics. I've never heard a single Australian refer to it as 'telephone' and here News.com.au is using it in their own report: [10] so it clearly can't have fallen out of fashion. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale - Frankly I doubt a MRV would have any chance of passing. The point that the term isn't racist (see, e.g., Ben Chu's comments on this linked in the article - it's about the Great Wall of China) is side-stepped with the device that "it's perceived as racist by some people, so that's all the discussion needed, we'll just forget that WP:CENSORED is policy here because... WP:IAR!". Imagine the same kind of discussion at Mexican stand-off - it wouldn't go the same way because this is a term familiar to Americans. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Svampesky: I think the point of that clause in RETAIN is to clarify that the guideline is not an exception to WP:CCC and to acknowledge that there may be some times when there is a reason to change EngVars beyond mere personal preference. Indeed, the guideline continues, Template:Tqq The existence of that sentence, the fact that it allows exceptions, and the fact that the exception list is non-exhaustive are all important. I think the overall thrust of that paragraph is already what you want it to be: An article's EngVar can be changed, but the proponents need to show either that the current EngVar is against guidelines or that changing would clearly and nontrivially improve the article. So, as a closer, if I were to see a discussion like this, with the same !vote totals, but the support side were all saying "Most people who edit this article are American, so that's easier" or "Mexico's near America so use AmEng", I would close against the numbers and expect to be upheld on a challenge. Maybe RETAIN could say this even more clearly, but to me it's quite clear already. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just to point out that there were quite a few comments that made statements along the lines of "in America we don't say this". These included:

  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq
  • Template:Tq

  FOARP (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  In assessing the close, I disregarded all arguments along those lines, including everything you've cited above but the second. (I don't see that as a stellar argument, but it's not pure "American way best way".) I also disregarded Necrothesp's argument on the other side for the same reason. That still left a strong majority in favor of changing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell But the majority were not in accordance with policy in this case. The side opposing the move based their arguments on things like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ATDAB, WP:RETAIN, WP:NOTCENSORED etc. Even people supporting some move pointed out the ambiguity. While understandable and can be factored in per IAR the side arguing based on being offensive has little basis on policy and should not trump the policy based arguments. Even if you didn't think you were closing the discussion based on "Most people who edit this article are American, so that's easier" this appears to have been what has heppened here. You as a closer have a responsability to discount such comments even if you personally think the term "Chinese whispers" is offensive. You're close has clearly resulted in a preference for American English even though the evidence presented supports otherwise. Could you please change to "no consenus", thanks. I do agree RETAIN does allow us to change variety but I think it doesn't apply in this case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Like I literally just said, Crouch, I did discount votes based on mere preference, and there was still consensus to move. The fact that some people made bad arguments does not negate the existence of a persuasive argument overall. If it did, it would cut both ways, since, again, both sides made "that's what I hear" arguments (a tragic inevitability in any EngVar-type discussion). As I've said to you repeatedly, I am not changing my close, and you are well aware of the administrative options if you would like to challenge it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)