Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (country-specific topics)

RFC regarding the title format for articles covering bilateral relations

The following discussion 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.

---

Which title format should articles discussing bilateral relations use:
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)
B. Use the nounal form of the countries name throughout (eg, Germany–Iceland relations)
C. Consider each article's common name; do not apply a uniform format

06:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified WP:WPFR 06:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @WikiCleanerMan:, @Happily888:, @Kj cheetham:, @Beshogur:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @Paradise Chronicle:, @SilentResident:, @GGT:, @Pilaz:, @Timrollpickering:, @Paintspot Infez:, @LSGH:, @Roger 8 Roger:, @TU-nor:, @Elias:, @Rreagan007:, and @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)

• A, otherwise C. I see some value in a uniform format, but only if that uniform format is aligned to the format 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:
  1. Albania and Italy
  2. Algeria and Libya
  3. Argentina and Brazil
  4. Belgium and Germany
  5. Canada and the United Kingdom
  6. China and Vietnam
  7. Norway and Sweden
  8. Slovakia and Poland
  9. Spain and Portugal
  10. Syria and Egypt
  11. 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.

1. Japan and North Korea
2. Japan and South Korea
3. Malaysia and Singapore
4. 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. 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. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@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? 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. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support B (Note: The present RfC opened due to the RM discussion that took place here at: Greece–Turkey relations#Requested move 1 January 2022). 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 "[Country A's article title]-[Country B's article title] relations".

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: "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: 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:CONSISTENTly, 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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 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 Greek-Turkish relations (159 results) and 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. 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: "[Country A's article title]-[Country B's article title] relations", 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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 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 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. 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 this RM, for example). 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. --T*U (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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 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). --T*U (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. --T*U (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"my fallacious"? Now, that's unexpected to hear, and disappointing. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's naming policies first? 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). 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.

"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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 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. --T*U (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: is it Indonesian-Australian relations or Australian-Indonesian relations? Australian government-affiliated researchers can't make up their mind, but Australia-Indonesia is on the contrary quite consensual in that paper and 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 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. 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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If A/C prevail, though, I will be excited to read the RMs in favor of Papal-Burmese relations and Sino-Equatoguinean relations. Pilaz (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That won't be an issue; the relevant adjectival form of Equatorial Guinea is Equatorial Guinean. 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 both adjectives are accepted. Like I said, it's going to be fun and definitely worth our time. Pilaz (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• The argument about harder to find is easily solved through redirects, as is the case with the current titles, like here. --T*U (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. 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? 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. 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 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. 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @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? --T*U (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @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"

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

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. --T*U (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. North8000 (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 . --Spekkios (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @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. BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I would support C if there is no consensus for A. --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. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @WikiCleanerMan: You claim that support of anything else than B is based on [f]eelings, likes, or dislikes and making a choice 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 this n-gram. WP:COMMONNAME! WP:RS! --T*U (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. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @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? Elias (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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 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. --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. Elias (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 RECOGNIZABILITY and NATURALNESS of titles in most of these situations, being the most COMMON format in sources per above n grams. 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: "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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 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 "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area" won't 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.

"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: "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. 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. 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 here. --T*U (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. Yilloslime (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @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. 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. 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). //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I have filed a closure request for this RfC at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Best, Pilaz (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• B – Having read the above discussion, i tend to prefer this option the most. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (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.

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. --jonas (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

B-21 2603:6010:D300:6ED9:590B:3864:129C:9AD3 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)