Jump to content

Talk:Gulf of Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit requests to change the name to Gulf of Mexico

There is no consensus at this time to rename this article "Gulf of America". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025

Rename Gulf of America to Gulf of Mexico Madame lucy cat (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2025

Name is wrong! Name is Gulf of America 2601:6C1:601:3780:FCEA:A42D:9049:53A0 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure its not Jfrimpong945 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAQ for more information I can do stuff! (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain has not changed the name, until he does the current name stays. Sijambo (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025 (2)

Gulf of America 161.199.207.138 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussions above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025 (3)

2A02:C7E:5A60:5900:423F:7ADF:CD12:E68B (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025 (4)

-- 2A02:C7C:9060:B200:8408:4DA8:F194:4FB6 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, See above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025 (5)

The Gulf of Mexico is now called the Gulf of America. Fix this fast. If you need a source please see the Duche bag president of the United States Of America PickYourPoison00 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US is only one of the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language. If the adoption of the new name becomes widespread among English speakers, then yes, otherwise it should remain as Gulf of Mexico. Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do however think it should be mentioned somewhere about the proposed rename; and I thank everyone who put the modern history section in there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be mentioned in the article though. Killuminator (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I’m saying, and have been saying for several days now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The official name currently is the Gulf of Mexico, which will not change until the Secretary of the Interior formally changes the name, rather than when the President signs an executive order directing him to do so. Snspigs (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PickYourPoison00 You come off as rude and entitled. Please be more polite. Anomalocarididae (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Donald Trump's mouth is not a WP:RS. Anomalocarididae (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A United States Presidential Executive order is. Rc2barrington (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A US President's EO does not control the English language; at most it (and the reporting around it) can be used to say Trump ordered it to be called that in the United States – which, again, is not the whole English-speaking world. Once actually implemented it can be noted that it is officially called such and such in America, but the article name is not going anywhere. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This would require a formal move request, IMHO very unlikely to succeed whatever Trump says. PatGallacher (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025

Name is incorrect. Please renamed Gulf of America.

Source: See President Donald J Trumps Inaugural address on January 20th, 2025 2601:681:5F04:F410:CC79:C163:52D9:4BCC (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above discussions and requested move. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025 (2)

It is now called the Gulf of America Nluz94 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above discussions and requested move. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025 (3)

Gulfamerica12 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EoRdE6(Talk) 20:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should have extended-confirmed-protection because numerous attempts have been made to change the name to Gulf of America preemptively. Logawinner (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gulf of America discussions

Gulf of America comment

Should Trump’s proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico be mentioned somewhere? Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - yes I believe it should believe it should be mentioned, as it has become a large topic of discussion globally relating to the the gulf, I believe a subcategory called “Trump name change proposal” would be appropriate and in that briefly summarise what he said in the press conference and following, the Mexican presidents reaction and wider international and national reaction, it could also be prudent to mention that there is debate whether the President of the United States has the authority to rename the gulf as many news outlets have been covering that aspect to it in the wake of the press conference @Hurricane Clyde Knowledgework69 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above is a question and not an RfC, and bolded supports or opposes are premature. As has been noted above, the question of where and when the renaming proposal should be mentioned in any Wikipedia article needs further discussion. Donald Albury 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Edited. 15:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but it should now be added, as of 9 January 2025 MAGA Republicans in the United States Congress, have introduced a bill to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America (Spearheaded by Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene) supporting President Elect Trumps proposal to rename the Gulf: The Hill, The Well News, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Press Release
As previously mentioned Trumps proposal has drawn international coverage and has been responded to by the Mexican President
@Donald Albury@Hurricane Clyde Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to H.R.276 of the 119th Congress introduced by Congresswoman Greene of the State of Georgia, Co-Sponsored by 14 other congressional members congress.gov Gulf of America Act (Pre introduction as H.R.276) Knowledgework69 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll second that by saying that the AP has also mentioned it too. There are certainly reliable sources. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today has also mentioned it as well. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 19:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if it touches anything with the current Congress or the United States Board on Geographic Names. – The Grid (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Direct link to H.R. 276, but the proposed language won't appear until next week. – The Grid (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion @The Grid, regardless of whether or not Congress actually takes up the issue; I think just the reaction internationally is notable enough for at least a mention somewhere; whether here, or on one of the Donald Trump articles, or both. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it has reached the threshold for notability, I think the most appropriate would be to add mention to the name change proposal in this article and the second trump presidency article Knowledgework69 (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was surprised to see this is not mentioned. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it should definitely be mentioned in the article somewhere. And once it is confirmed that the US Government is officially referring to this body of water as the "Gulf of America" it should be mentioned in the lead section and bolded as an alternate name. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny story, the first Wikipedia page to include the Trump name was the RUSSIAN Wikipedia page. Gives You ("made-again-great"-)US-Americans something to think about... Lumenor (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the whole page should be renamed to the Gulf of America. Mexico has their own version of wikipedia and if they want to call it Golfo de Mexico then they can do that on their own page. Jhartman087 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the American Wikipedia, however, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. — Czello (music) 15:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive order renaming to gulf of America

Will be signed today, as per CNN reporting. 99.227.156.90 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US is only one of the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language. If the adoption of the new name becomes widespread among English speakers, then yes, otherwise it should remain as Gulf of Mexico. No offense, but Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the information is relevant in the article. There are multiple sources discussing already. USA Today, The Independent, US New and World Report. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some alternatives, once the executive order has been signed, are "also called" in the lead sentence, an explanatory footnote, or a "Name" section. Any other suggestions? Donald Albury 16:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like (if he does actually do it), "Donald Trump made an attempt by executive order to change the name to 'Gulf of America' on (date)" with reaction from Mexico etc. would probably be good enough for now. We can note later when the US official maps get changed, wait to see how many other countries change their official maps. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once (and if) it happens, I do think we will need to discuss how prominent in the article this should be. I would like it to be a section or a footnote, but I expect to see supporters for putting it in the lead. Donald Albury 16:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and again, I would like to point interested readers to the history of Cape Kennedy. Donald Albury 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best analogue is probably Sea of Japan where there is a dominant English-language name for a body of water in which the two countries claiming that it should be named after itself. There, it has a name section, and a link to the section from the top. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. Some mention of this alternate naming convention is needed; it's clearly notable enough -- but the predominant name in English remains the Gulf of Mexico, so it should be addressed lower down in the article. Jbt89 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be treated in the same way as Mount McKinley/Denali. 99.227.156.90 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all equivalent since the Gulf of Mexico is substantially international waters and has multiple English speaking countries bordering it and even in it, unlike Denali which is entirely within US territory. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 04:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Denali was actually at one point named Mt. McKinley. It has never been called the Gulf of Mexico. The Radioactive Box (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stand by for an incoming spate of vandalism... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should eagerly change its name here in advance of any official order or legislation. Anyone who dislikes the name change probably hates President Trump and probably hates America too. At some point they ought to accept that he overwhelmingly won the popular vote. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Bryan (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was. Of course it's not. But let us acknowledge that President Trump is our leader. Let's stop bickering, put America first, and move forward. Bryan (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The article's name should not be changed unless a significant majority of English speakers worldwide adopt this new name. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where are the servers located? --Mapsfly (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mapsfly Here is a link to answer your question, cheers! --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BryanKaplan, trying to make this political is disruptive. Please stop. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I came off as disruptive, @Valereee. Let's keep politics out of unpolitical matters, sure, but we're discussing a literally political topic here. I mean, it's a place name which appears on political maps.
Wikipedia determines which name people use in the world, @Accuratelibrarian. Bryan (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BryanKaplan, let us acknowledge that President Trump is our leader. Let's stop bickering, put America first, and move forward and Anyone who dislikes the name change probably hates President Trump and probably hates America too. At some point they ought to accept that he overwhelmingly won the popular vote and we should all be on board with following his lead are political statements. Stop now. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BryanKaplan, I see someone has removed the comment I was replying to. I would still like to reply. My reply was:
No topic on Wikipedia is "political". We follow the sources and summarize what they say. Making political statements is 100% unhelpful. If you cannot understand that, you should not be editing in politics topics. Do you think you can comply? Valereee (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: @Acroterion deleted [my comment] because in his words it was “grossly inappropriate”. I have to wonder what else on Wikipedia he's thought it's okay to delete.
It's naive to pretend political things are apolitical. Claiming the Gulf of America is apolitical does not somehow make it so. It's a political region found on political maps, and the political leader of the free world just made clear in a political address that its political name has been changed. Politically.
My only point here is that we should stop bickering and accept the inevitable. Anything else is counter-productive and anti-American. Do you think you can comply? Bryan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BryanKaplan, so you're telling me you can't comply? Valereee (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is talking a different variant of English anti-American? The world extends beyond the Borders of the United States. Donald Trump is not 'our leader', he's your leader. Kardoen (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is one of the reasons we don't get into this stuff, @BryanKaplan. @Kardoen, I'm going to ask you not to continue. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what impact you think calling things "anti-American" is going to have, particularly as many of us aren't American; as has been explained, this is not the American Wikipedia, and even if it were, WP:COMMONNAME still exists. — Czello (music) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever you happen to live in the world, the Gulf of America is located in the Americas, between two countries which are both part of the Americas. Its historical name, the Gulf of Mexico, should be clearly identified and explained in the article. The term I used, “anti-American”, is not meant as an insult but rather a plain description of opposition to our acknowledgement of the Gulf's new name. Bryan (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BryanKaplan:, there is no "Gulf of America" right now. One can't just point a magic wand and say "this is the thing", there is a way that geographical names are determined. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Hurricanehink. As I said in another comment, Wikipedia is not just for Americans. It is a project of international collaboration. We are no more beholden in our editing to the POTUS than we are to any other head of state. So long as the majority of the English-speaking world calls it the Gulf of Mexico, then so it shall remain here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, @Hurricanehink, @TornadoLGS; I do think Trump’s proposal to change the name should at least be mentioned in the history section. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not if the proposal isn't a real proposal! Trump often says wild things just to rile people up, and then doesn't do it. Think of the Greenland/Canada/Panama invasion threat. Until there is something actionable here, I don't think we should be promoting the words of someone who can't just snap and force things to happen. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is honestly quits silly. I'm not an American, and for my entire life it's being called the Gulf of Mexico - and will remain being called the Gulf of Mexico in every country other then the US. To say that not naming it is "anti-American" is quite silly, cause than rejecting the name that Mexico uses for the gulf of Mexico, for example, means I can call you "anti-Mexican". Just because a foreign president like yours has made an executive order doesn't mean it's the actual name people call it by - most Americans themselves will probably continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico anyways. This whole conversation is quite silly. Foxterria (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that a future U.S. President or future U.S. congress can revert this silly renaming stupidity. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just leave comments about it to the side. The talk is for discussing the article. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ephemeral you think the name will be is Original Research and should not be taken as a point against renaming. Some renames last and some don’t.
Wikipedia should use the name that shows up in reliable sources. anikom15 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The political garbage (inaccurate as it is) has no place here. Spanghew2fs (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan, You made it political when you brought up Trump and when you accused people who did not like the name change of hating America. TheEarth1974 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an American and love my Country, yet i oppose this name change. I agree with the consensus that we should use the most common name for this body of water, which is the Gulf of Mexico (a name which is still used by most Americans) AmericanWoman1996 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"overwhelmingly won the popular vote"? 50.53% of voters voted for someone other than Trump. 49.8% of voters voted for Trump.
Even disregarding non- major-party candidates, Trump's margin of victory was only 1.5%...the fifth-smallest of any election since 1900.
Trump did win the popular vote. But to call such a margin "overwhelming" is nothing but partisanship. Spanghew2fs (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the United States literally said it's the Gulf of America. Regardless of if this is consensus the name is now officially in dispute. It would be the same as if an unrecognized country existed or anything else. Bobklosak (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The president of the United States does not have the authority to change the name of international waters. I'd say we keep it as the Gulf of Mexico unless we have over 50% of the world's population agree to change the name to Gulf of America. Kiphub21 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be included in the LEAD section because not doing so is just against America. Arabian countries did the same thing with the Persian gulf, and Wikipedia complied. It should be "The Gulf of Mexico, called/officially called the Gulf of America in the United States." Rc2barrington (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EO only renamed the U.S.-contiguous part of the Gulf. So it would be incorrect to say that the Gulf of Mexico is "officially called the Gulf of America in the United States." FPTI (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing an interesting usage, the 'U.S. Gulf of Mexico", already in use, which was just changed to "U.S. Gulf of America" in the Queen snapper article. In a way, that makes it clear that it's only the U.S. part of the Gulf. Faolin42 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the name of the "The Gulf of Mexico Fish Management Council" (such as in that edit) would need to actually occur formally before changing the name of the organization here. I'm sure there will be waves this kind of jingoistic and premature editing for a while.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that it is not called the "Gulf of America" under law, per 43 USC 364 there is a whole body that determines what the Federal Government calls places. The president has no such authority to do this and he even acknowledges this at the beginning of the Executive Order by asking all department heads to purge any members on the Board on Geographic Names who may disagree with Mr. Trump. Even then, there is still a UN equivalent. If the Board on Geographic Names rules that it is now the "Gulf of America," then the article probably ought to mention it. The Radioactive Box (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here for the expected edit wars

We need to discuss seriously how do we handle an executive order. I don’t have a dog in this - but I do hope we can stay objective - and remove politics - for the benefit of the project. An executive order changes a lot in this conversation.

TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump has no authority to rename an international body of water like the Gulf of Mexico by executive order, unlike Denali, which is entirely a domestic matter. Seems to be pretty clear cut case against renaming it for the far future unless the rename gains international traction. Uberbane (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authority or not, we should all be on board with following his lead. Bryan (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This site is not just for Americans, though. Its editors are not beholden to the President of the United States any more than they are to any other head of state. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'We' will do no such thing. This is the site for an ENGLISH-speaking project, not AMERICAN. Pinnecco (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the name change proposal should at least be mentioned; even if the title stays as Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the information currently in the NAME section of the article, referencing the executive order, is a good compromise. Pinnecco (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2601:3CB:901:E720:B9EA:3FFB:9F09:DD7A (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but everyone in the world knows the President of the United States ordered the name to be changed so wouldn't the name officially be "in dispute" as far as the world is concerned.
We acknowledge China's one China policy for example when talking about Taiwan. Bobklosak (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobklosak Mexico borders the GoM as well. They have as much of a claim to naming it as the US does. Why are you so insistent on this change? Anomalocarididae (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be mentioned in the article, but not in the first part of it. We can not mention all names of pkaces in different languages in the ingress. Futher down, so the reactions from for example Mexico and other Americans might be written too (dont forget that Mexicans also are Americans, even if the US does not like to hear them be called Americans). Adville (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish version should continue to call it the golfo de México, I would certainly agree. In American English, however, it is now the Gulf of America according to US law. Not logged in 2 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
America isn't even half of the English-speaking world. In Britain, which isn't bound by US executive orders, it will remain as the Gulf of Mexico (except to Nigel Farage, a good friend of the American right-wing political scene). Departure– (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Untrue, the population of UK (68 million), Anglophone Canada (31 million), Australia (26 million) and NZ (5 million) combined total only 130 million native speakers (vs 334 million in the USA). The other countries (eg. Ireland, India, South Africa) speak English as a SECOND language and therefore are not counted. Renaming to Gulf of America is also justified for the following reasons:
(i) 'Gulf of Mexico' is not a neutral name and could be exploited by Mexico in the future if future oil reserves are discovered in this vicinity.
(ii) The word "Mexico" derives from the "Mexica" tribe which was and is a LANDLOCKED tribe with no territory on the coast.
(iii) The word "America" has a broader meaning and can refer to the entire American Subcontinent encompassing, North America, Central America and South America.
(iv) Latin Americans consider themselves to be American (source: Quora)
--Gwynlais (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the AI-sounding part of this and focus on "The other countries (eg. Ireland, India, South Africa) speak English as a SECOND language and therefore are not counted." So? I'm American and don't even call it that so I don't see why it needs to be asserted as such. Departure– (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the US borders the Gulf of America and has territorial waters encompassing it, so that has to be a factor that matters. For Wikipedia editors to be slow-walking this is an example of political bias, pure and simple. Not logged in 2 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gwynlais, please see WP:NOTFORUM. Your comment is only arguing why you prefer the name, but this is irrelevant to whether or not it should be used on Wikipedia. We're not here to discuss the pros and cons of the names or convince other editors that one name makes more sense to us. What matters is which name is actually being used, not only by the involved countries, but the rest of the world.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico

Now changed by Donald J Trump the 47th president of the United States of America to Gulf of America on 20th January 2025 declaring the golden age of American democracy. Iddaya (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The US is only one of the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language. If the adoption of the new name becomes widespread among English speakers, then yes, otherwise it should remain as Gulf of Mexico. Wikipedia is not the American government. See WP:COMMONAME. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Persian Gulf says "also the Arabian gulf" because some arabian countries decided to change it. So I think it should be changed. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be changed just because a politician from a single country decided to sign a paper today. There's still no consensus among English-speaking countries. DemianStratford (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it should be called the Gulf of America

Does this idea really make sense?? I'm sure that "Gulf of Mexico" is a well-established name; everyone knows it by that name and I'm sure this will never be out-of-date. Georgia guy (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doubtfully will ever be commonly named Gulf of America, just like (Mexican President said) the United States of America will never be named Mexican America. Bedivere (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do you think it is likely that Trump's proposal will pass?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation isn’t supposed to be on the talk pages though, it’s not a Crystal Ball. Also regarding the name change, consensus can change, but right now, no one calls it Gulf of America. It’s a political stunt and we’ll see if there are any ramifications down the line. But it screams recentism bias to add it in for now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like Donald Trump has signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-names-that-honor-american-greatness/ Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make it the common name used to refer to this gulf. See WP:COMMONNAME. Bedivere (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a common name. All I'm saying is that Trump is making the US Government refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. If you read the executive order, it only renames part of the Gulf of Mexico. This article is about the whole thing. FPTI (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone coming to the page should refer to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTNEWS. I would argue that the phrasing of 'If Trump were to issue an executive order, the official name would change only in the United States, and other countries would not be obliged to follow.' does not comply with the latter policy.
Wikipedia defers to WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources. Relm (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, it's only an Executive Order. Unless it gains traction, I wouldn't even consider renaming this page. NesserWiki (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf of America name seems to apply to only part of the Gulf of Mexico

Here's the text of the executive order [1]:

The Secretary of the Interior shall... rename as the "Gulf of America" the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico.

It seems that the newly named Gulf of America is actually only the northernmost part of the Gulf of Mexico, ending at the U.S. borders. This would make it a subdivision of the Gulf of Mexico, much like the Bay of Campeche. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating at all I am just confused lol. So like it just is naming a part of the whole? The whole being the gulf of Mexico and then the part that is purely bordering America and not in international waters the Gulf of America then? If so, then the American name change section of the article should be edited to reflect that. You could BE BOLD and change that then. I appreciate you @Antony-22 providing the text of the document. Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's being split in half, with the U.S. portion being the Gulf of America and the Mexican and Cuban portion remaining the Gulf of Mexico. We may have to wait for USGS to come out with new maps to know for sure. I'm mostly surprised that I seem to be the first person who noticed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common name of the whole thing remains Gulf of Mexico. The smaller subarea named "Gulf of America" in the latest political controversy could perhaps be added to the "Seven main areas" part of the Geology section if enough traction and consensus in the English speaking world happens down the line. DemianStratford (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first, I've been making this point repeatedly over and over. It says a lot that most people talking about this topic haven't actually read the executive order, including people who keep demanding we change the article title. FPTI (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom fries derived from French fries and the French fries article does not mention anything about the political name change in the main article but merely a link to Freedom fries in the "See also" section. Political stunts in recent times should not dictate instant edits of this size in the main article, even if they're accompanied by policy warfare such as was the case with freedom fries. Linguistic consensus of the common names is what is important. Right now the consensus is Gulf of Mexico. I think if the name and concept gain traction later there could be a separate article like there is one for Bay of Campeche. It is too early for a change of this size. DemianStratford (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DemianStratford.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously renaming the article would violate WP:COMMONNAME but I think putting some kind of entry into the article mentioning Trump's action would be appropriate. Anyone else agree? Ergzay (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you on that @Ergzay Middle Mac CJM (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the government of the Ukraine changed the old English language word "Kiev" for an English neologism, editors here on Wikipedia rushed to comply. I am at a loss as to why when the Government of the United States does the same, editors are reluctant. The situations exactly mirror each other, no? XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many countries share Kyiv and how many countries share the Gulf of Mexico? Yue🌙 06:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm I think you're being disingenuous. Wikipedia kept it as Kiev for quite a while and there was heated debate on the talk page for a while. What made them flip is the majority of news media switching to calling it Kyiv. Many other Ukrainian city wikipedia pages still have their old well known Russian-origin names. This is what Wikipedia always does. In this case it's important for Wikipedia to talk about the naming as its well covered in sources, but renaming the page would not be appropriate because it's not the WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest reading that page. I personally do think however that Wikipedia relies too heavily on "traditional"/"mainstream" (often quite biased) sources though and I think that's a policy that will change with time, but it hasn't changed yet. Ergzay (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current coverage in this article is good for now—there's one sentence in the lead and a paragraph in History. I'd caution that there should only be a separate article if the northern portion is hydrologically or ecologically distinct enough from the rest of the Gulf, and/or the naming controversy itself becomes notable. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, those sentences were not there at the point in time I left my first comment. Ergzay (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In spanish Wikipedia we still use "Kiev" instead "Kyev", as we use "Alemania" instead "Deutchland".
It's WP:COMMONNAME, official names are just official in their counties. Comendador Sombra (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're presumably proposing a 25 year moratorium on any name change then? Given Ukraine started requesting the anglicisation change from Kiev to Kyiv in 1995 and Wikipedia "rushed to comply" in 2020? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:D472:804C:970D:94D8 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, the name has not been changed yet (Sec. 3 (b):within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as the “Gulf of America”). In addition, the change applies only to the US and its administration. The Gulf of Mexico is a transboundary entity and its official name (including its English translation) remains unchanged in Mexico and Cuba. In addition, the English name of the Gulf of Mexico, as a sea body, is established internationally by the International Hydrographic Organization and listed in publication S-23. Limits of Oceans and Seas – changing the current name requires the approval of all countries (see the case of the Sea of ​​Japan). The US is not the only English-speaking country – the use of a given name in Wikipedia is due to its commonuse in the English language, not just in one English-speaking country. Aotearoa (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Recent U.S. Presidential Executive Order in the WP:LEDE

It is my opinion that the executive order NOT be listed in the WP:LEDE for reasons mentioned by Aotearoa and DemianStratford in the above section. Per WP:BRD, I believe this edit by Hiplibrarianship should be reverted back to the status quo ante so that it is not in the lede. I have asked the editor to self-revert. The edit says this redirect discussion somehow justifies including the Order in the WP:LEDE. However, I did not see any mention of this article's LEDE in that discussion. Without consensus, the status quo ante should prevail. It cannot be edit-warred in. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names should only be mentioned in the lead if significant. Too many articles are overly cluttered in this regard. A political stunt that may not catch on (we don't have a crystal ball to say either way) is not significant to the very long history of the Gulf of Mexico. I would not mention the alternate name anywhere in the lead, it can be briefly mentioned in the body. (t · c) buidhe 07:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the alternative name should not be mentioned in the lead at present. Unless it catches on, this is a political stunt not a name of a body of water. No objection to mentioning it briefly in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise - I edited in the lead paragraph to reflect the fact that it's an an initiation of a process rather than the completion of a name change, buyt that really just solidifies my I don't think this should be in the lead now, or untill there's widespread usage of this term. I fear in the long run it'll become significant enough for mention purely as a partisan football per the Persian Gulf naming dispute. Golikom (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the same opinion, belongs in the body, not the lead. GanzKnusper (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should not be part of the lede but if it is to be included in the article at all, perhaps it would be wise to include it in a section related to politics or modern naming controversy at the end of the article, not even in the history section yet until more time passes and we see how this develops and settles down. It is not history yet. Also, let us not forget that the alleged "renaming" only applies to a subsection of the Gulf of Mexico that the US already owns and controls. It does not apply to the entire Gulf of Mexico like many seem to think. This is important to know since this would put it on the same level as other subregions within the Gulf of Mexico like the Gulf of Campeche for example. It does not supersede the common name from what I understand in discussions above. DemianStratford (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support having a single sentence in the lead. The executive order has been widely reported and is thus notable, and readers will be coming to this article to learn about what it actually does, and they shouldn't have to dig deep into the article to find it. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should NOT be part of the lead. Placing it there is giving a minor political event undue weight. While the executive order will very likely be observed by the U.S. federal government (in official documents and communications), it has no further reach. It will not affect U.S. media sites (other than those politically aligned with the president), reference works, or any other sources independent of the U.S. government. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2025

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico → Gulf of America – The executive order has now been made, meaning that in the US– the only Anglophone country bordering the Gulf– the sole legal name is "Gulf of America" which means all US federal agencies using that term, implying it becoming the common name in English (albeit likely not in Spanish!). Despite all of the discussions above there doesn't seem to have been an actual RM started yet, oddly enough. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we'll never call the Gulf of Mexico "Gulf of America" on Wikipedia. --Tataral (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE– no policy based rationale provided here Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it is. Above, by numerous editors. You are starting yet another section on a ridiculous, far-fetched proposal that is never going to happen, that has no basis in Wikipedia policy at all, and that has already been debated to death. Wikipedia doesn't rename oceans when Trump issues a press release (seriously). --Tataral (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will if the name catches on! StAnselm (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral, Wikipedia will base the naming convention on common name per WP:UCRN.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 16:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --Tataral (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, English Wikipedia isn’t just for Americans but it is for all english speaking countries and those who can speak english in countries where english isn’t a primary language. Unless all the other countries or even a worldwide organization changes it, it doesn’t have precedent for a change. Thanks, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The executive order does not rename the entire Gulf of Mexico, just its northernmost part within U.S. borders. Here's the relevant text: "The Secretary of the Interior shall... rename as the 'Gulf of America' the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't say "extending eastward", it just says "extending", so it seems like it would cover the entire gulf by extending south and southeast to Mexico and Cuba. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     17:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahecht The Gulf of Mexico doesn't stop at the American border. FPTI (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We can revisit this if the name becomes widely adopted outside of just government documents. implying it becoming the common name in English violates WP:CRYSTAL. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE. Names on Wikipedia aren't dictated by executive order, they're determined by what reliable, independent sources use. Until that switches, the title should remain as-is. Turnagra (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry, why does one country's decision on a new name get to change the article? Deadlyops (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, I never understood why WP:NAMECHANGES allows you to change a persons name immediately, while when a nation does it it takes 10,000 arguments with stubborn editors. De facto support this, like I support Türkiye, Czechia, Timor-Leste and the dozens of Ukrainian articles that were moved last year. Anyways, I'm sure we're going to see this name change request often for at least the next 4 years.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gulf of Mexico is an international body of water which borders several nations, and is subject to international law and agreement - the name changes you are referring to are name change which reflect the decisions by countries to rename themselves, or areas which are wholly under their control. The US doesn't wholly control the Gulf of Mexico so doesn't get to unilaterally tell others what it is called, so such a comparison wouldn't be comparable. BitterGiant (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and pears. One case refers to a living person with legal capacities, including suing for defamation. The other is not. Calling editors stubborn is a personal attack that doesn't make your argument stronger and supporting other name changes is irrelevant for this discussion. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree that it's apples and pears. If an organization or country chooses to rename themselves, I think it ought to be respected similarly to persons. And corporations/countries also have certain legal capacities. Finally, calling someone stubborn is in no way a personal attack - sincerely, a stubborn editor. Ortizesp (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ortizesp But the gulf of Mexico isn't an organization or a country. it's a geographical feature, and it was only partially renamed, in one country. FPTI (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a widely used name, indeed it was literally unilaterally decided by the new administration in Washington D.C.; as it stands, no other nation uses this name, and no official international organisations have recognised this EO. Changing the name would therefore WP:NPOV as it would be seen as siding with a name change made for partisan political reasons, and is a level of editorialisation that Wikipedia is above. BitterGiant (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:TOOSOON to tell if reliable sources outside official sources will use it even within American English. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose. An executive order is not a final decision. It's not even known whether that man's initiative will ever go through. It's the Golf of Mexico. Period. --Maxl (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because there is not wide enough usage of the term, but I would not be against putting something like "(Also known as the Gulf of America)" at the start of the article due to the term's usage by the US Government. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - a name being officially used by the U.S. federal government does, in any intrinsic way, make it the WP:commonname. The fact is that every publication, source, book, movie, song, show, paper, etc up till Trump's announcement has used "Gulf of Mexico" - that corpus of usage overwhelms, by far, any usage of "Gulf of America". And until common usage of GoA catches up, if ever, to GoM, the article will remain as it is listed. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

What exactly does the executive order rename?

I believe the The executive order does not rename the entire Gulf of Mexico, just its northernmost part within U.S. borders. Here's the relevant text:

The Secretary of the Interior shall... rename as the "Gulf of America" the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico.

I believe that the language "extending to" means "extending until but not beyond" the boundary of U.S. jurisdiction, but User:Ahecht disagrees, so let's get more perspectives. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22 Please remove your original researchsynthesis regarding the executive order only pertaining to the northernmost portion unless you can cite a reliable source. The wording of the executive order is ambiguous, as it does not specify that it only extends to the "maritime boundaries" of Mexico (which would imply the northernmost portion per the 1978 treaty), but instead specifically says "seaward boundary". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the wording is ambiguous. The EO specifically mentions a U.S.–Mexico and Cuba border that is the limit of the renaming, and, there's no seaward boundary between the U.S. and Mexico that runs immediately along the latter's coast. If the EO's intent to rename the whole gulf, it would have said so in plain language. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22 The border of Mexico runs 12 miles off the coast, the maritime boundary just defines Mexico's Exclusive Economic Zone. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That would still rename a portion of the gulf and not the whole thing, just a larger portion of it. We might just have to wait for USGS to come out with a new map to know for sure, but for now it seems clear that there is a boundary, it just might be unclear which one it is. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "seaward boundary" is defined in the U.S. Code as "a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line." Which is actually slightly smaller than the maritime boundary. FPTI (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FPTI The maritime boundary, as described in the 1978 treaty, actually splits the Gulf essentially in half. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahecht Right. That's why I said that the seaward boundary is smaller than the maritime boundary. FPTI (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Antony-22 It's clear that this discussion at best would just end up with what Wikipedia's interpretation of the EO is. Until a reliable source chimes in, please revert the text to the neutral initiate a renaming process specifically designating "the U.S. Continental Shelf area bounded on the northeast, north, and northwest by the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida and extending to the seaward boundary with Mexico and Cuba in the area formerly named as the Gulf of Mexico" as the Gulf of America. See also #What is the "Gulf of America"? below. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that sticking to the exact text is probably best at this point, and as you request, I'll make a revision along those lines. I've been keeping an eye on news reports, and haven't seen one that specifically interprets the text on the extent of the renaming, so there are no WP:RS leaning either way at this point. We can revisit this once a source appears that is clearly based on analysis of the actual text of the EO. However, I'd like to emphasize that we interpret and paraphrase the clear meaning of the words of a source all the time on Wikipedia, and there's nothing against policy about that. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Gulf of America

I am closing this discussion as redundant to the others on the subject already closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No longer the Gulf of Mexico 🤷🏼‍♂️ 2601:283:4E82:9F0:58E8:782A:9D22:5E46 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? US law doesn't suddenly change the common name of a body of water shared by multiple countries. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I just renamed it the Gulf of Milowent, i demand this article be renamed according to my personal Executive Order.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wiki was "American English only" or at least most of the posts are? (not that I agree) I would have thought that this would have changed in seconds! Atomicdanny (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Name change ?

Shouldn't the decision of controversial name change at least be mentioned on the article ? Raggedrogue (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raggedrogue, it currently is discussed at Gulf of Mexico § Name. The overall consensus so far is that it should be confined to a section and not in the lead of the article, currently. Since it's an ongoing thing, the placement may change. Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand all the fuss. I get waiting until it is actually official as per the Department of the Interior and not just ordered, but after that, it should read something like “The Gulf of America, or the Gulf of Mexico,…” or vice versa. Only three countries are on the gulf and Mexico and Cuba’s primary language isn't even English. LunarEcho87 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name hadn't actually been changed yet in the US government, they've just been ordered to started the process, and so far no sources are actually calling it the Gulf of America that I've seen. Skynxnex (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

@Ambrosiaster: This is ostensibly the fifth time you've reverted this content's inclusion in the article (I've only reverted your edit once and was unaware of this past activity). Please do not engage in edit warring. If you're against its inclusion, please read WP:DUE and try to generate consensus for it to be removed, as it's plain that at least three experienced editors see it as having due weight. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambrosiaster: Instead of reading this, you reverted this material for now a sixth time in under 24 hours. It's okay to disagree, but the three-revert rule is firm, and what you're doing by not engaging here is disruptive and can get you blocked from editing. Given at least three editors who have at least some familiarity with guidelines and policies have expressly chosen to include the history of this name as a piece of satire as it's collectively referenced in multiple reliable, independent sources, it's up to you to generate consensus based on guidelines and policy for why it should not be included, not to continue to violate the rule against edit warring. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the user continues to ignore you and engage in edit warring, I would strongly encourage making an ANI complaint Rc2barrington (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the most appropriate venue for this. Departure– (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make it both the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of America, with Gulf of Mexico as the article title?

See Wikipedia:Article titles, if the United States, which has several states bordering the gulf, has it renamed, then the name Gulf of America should also be used. The common name, including those used by geographers and geologists, will stay as the Gulf of Mexico. But the name Gulf of America also deserves mention.

It's similar to how people still refer to Twitter as Twitter, though it's been officially named to "X" by Elon Musk. We feature both Twitter and X in that article. In a similar fashion, if the United States wishes to rename it the Gulf of America, we should mention that name too. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You treat the United States as a monolith for seemingly no reason. This isn't common usage at all, and unlike somebody who owns a company who has the unilateral authority to change the singular official name of that company where we can at least justify including it in the lead sentence (or the lead at all for that matter), this has effectively zero common usage and thus does not warrant a mention in the lead. If the Argentinian president decided to rename the Atlantic Ocean to the Argentinian Ocean, would we give the lead sentence "The Atlantic Ocean, also known as the Argentinian Ocean..."? No. At that point, we're actively misleading readers that this name is in common usage and abusing our position in order to platform that name into common usage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if the Argentine president decided to rename the Falkland Islands as the Islas Malvinas, then I'd reckon Wikipedia might mention that in the lead ;) DecafPotato (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(In all seriousness, I think the best option for now is an {{efn}} footnote next to "Gulf of Mexico" in the lead that reads "Since 2025, the sea's official name in the United States has been the Gulf of America".) DecafPotato (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned it in a section above, but as far as I can tell, there are zero sources saying the name has actually been changed yet. The EO says As such, within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall, consistent with 43 U.S.C. 364 through 364f, take all appropriate actions to rename as the Gulf of America, and that 30 day time is also mentioned in RS, for example [2]. So nothing in our article should say that Gulf of America is the official name in the US, at least not yet. Skynxnex (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your linked source also mentioned that's it's already been used by Florida's state government, so I'd argue it's already official in some sense. But I'd agree that it might be a bit misleading to describe it as an "official" name before the 30-day timeframe has passed, and presumably the name goes from official to officially official. Would "In 2025, the United States government began a process of changing the sea's name to the Gulf of America" be acceptable? (Keep in mind, this would be in only a footnote unless common usage for the name emerges in secondary sources.) DecafPotato (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the DeSantis emergency declaration really impacts it enough by itself. This is a place it'd be nice if Wikipedia could stay a bit slower and follow sources. I don't have any objection to a similar footnote (or similar minor addition to the lead about the process) at this time but I think waiting for a few other editors to agree at this point reduces the risk of editing warring. Skynxnex (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured somebody was going to bring up the Falklands as a tongue-in-cheek sort of "gotcha", and I specified Argentina on purpose for this reason: the name Islas Malvinas has an extensive, centuries-long history and is in such common usage that all UN documentation has it listed in parentheses. It's so wildly, fundamentally different from this form of WP:RECENTISM that it only serves to starkly contrast the proposal to add this alternative name to the lead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the significance of Islas Malvinas, but my goal was to caution against making an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument based on an entirely hypothetical scenario with your Argentinian Sea example. DecafPotato (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the point comes that multiple reliable sources use the term "Gulf of America", we would need to include it, but for now, literally the only source that uses it is Trump's executive order. We are not anywhere near the point where this name should be given as an alternative name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is certainly enough reliable source usage, as well as usage by notable figures, to support the Gulf of America name. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all moot at this point since any renaming hasn't actually happened (yet). The ececutive order simply directed those federal departments in charge of such things to start their process for renaming. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true as it is already in progress and underway, due it being made official. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Care to cite any reliable, independent sources which refer to this as the 'Gulf of America'? And I don't just mean news reports on Trump's executive order; I mean reliable, independent sources which either state plainly that this is currently in common usage or that treat 'Gulf of America' as its de facto name rather than just the de jure one used by the US executive branch. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent coverage is more relevant for an article rename discussion. For a mere lead inclusion such as this, to qualify for it per policy, it would need sufficient reliable source coverage and/or mention by notable figures.
It has both. Also, the government of Florida is already using "Gulf of America" independently now. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: The latest policy would only apply to a subsection of the Gulf of Mexico. It does not apply to the entire Gulf of Mexico like many seem to think. It is not a renaming of the whole thing. This is important to know since this would put it on the same level as other subregions within the Gulf of Mexico like the Gulf of Campeche, for example. It does not supersede the common name. The fact that certain politicians sold this to their base as something that it wasn't is besides the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a politician's propaganda arm. DemianStratford (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never Jfrimpong945 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnAdams1800 No its not similar. The OWNERS of Twitter renamed it to X. The OWNERS of the Gulf of Mexico have not renamed it. Dimspace (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of America

I am NOT suggesting the title be changed to "Gulf of America". I am requesting that the article introduction to say "The Gulf of Mexico, called the Gulf of America in the United States,...". And this is because some Arabian countries decided to offically change the name of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Gulf and Wikipedia said Persian Gulf OR Arabian Gulf, but it's not being done here for whatever reason. This was actually done but reversed for whatever reason. And there should be a formal RFC not 5 different discussions about the topic. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison between the Arab/Persian Gulf naming dispute which has been ongoing for decades now and the Gulf of America thing which happened literally yesterday is undue 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

RfC about Gulf of America change

Should Gulf of America should be in the LEAD section?

I am requesting that all other discussions about the Gulf of America be closed and have a formal RfC to resolve this issue. Consensus has shown AGAINST changing the entire title to the Gulf of America. But there is still debate on whether or not it should be included in the article, particularly in the LEAD section. Rc2barrington (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per all above. Are we really debating this? Wasn't the WP:SNOW consensus on the RM enough? Departure– (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To this point, I'll say that it's poetic that 10 inches of snow fell on the Gulf Coast today. Not that it changes the outcome of this discussion. Departure– (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - per OFFICIALNAME, even if you argue that Gulf of America is the official name, that does not merit usage. COMMONNAME takes precedence. Also, with all the "Americentrism" accusations, this would only fuel those. As far as I know, no other country calls it the Gulf of America. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Penitentes for getting me into Wikipedia edits and User:EF5 for helping me edit and User:Departure– for reviewing my first DYK [4]
Just wondering, and I'm not implying anything, but are you and the above two editors a friend group or perhaps alts? Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we aren't the same person. We edit in the same topic areas, and regularly check each other's contributions, hence why we (probably) voted at around the same time. EF5 23:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're members of the Wikipedia community with convergent interest in weather articles. Departure– (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Don't care for what one country says Jfrimpong945 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentioning it as an alternative name. The article's title won't change per WP:COMMONNAME, but I seriously believe that one of the major countries bordering the Gulf should get its favored name as well. Different countries can have different names for the same geographic body. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the name only applies to a part of the Gulf of Mexico, similarly to the Gulf of Campeche. It is not the entire thing. Read about what you support. DemianStratford (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Other than one use by Florida, I've seen no use of this new name besides in the context of the debate over having a new name. We should wait to see if it'll actually become a common name. Until then this is WP:Recentism. Nuew (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Coast Guard is using it too. StAnselm (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ In 2025, the United States government began a process of changing the sea's name to the Gulf of America.
Strong oppose per TheTechnician27. Also worth mentioning that the American NOAA/National Weather Service continues to use Gulf of Mexico. I'm sure one day Trump will try to do something about that (Project 2025 advocates abolishing NOAA entirely), but that's for another time. As of right now, not even the entire American government is adopting the name; it's way too early to even say "also known as the Gulf of America" or "officially known in the United States as the Gulf of America." Not just in the lead, but anywhere in the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is recentism and unreasonable weight. Wikipedia is based on currently established precedent for usage, as it stands it is not a widely used name and should not be included prominently. Better as a small part of the name section. 180.150.37.206 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support – This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Several editors, like Vanilla Wizard have pointed out the National Weather Service still uses the "Gulf of Mexico". However, other weather-related articles that involve any sort of double "official" names list both in the lead sentence. For example, Wikipedia's Featured Article Typhoon Tip is officially known to the Philippines government as "Super Typhoon Warling", which the very first sentence says. Do we rename the article? No per WP:COMMONNAME. But Wikipedia precedent says it should be listed. A ton of other weather-related articles follow this practice for official/unofficial names including: 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, Hurricane Sandy ("Superstorm Sandy"), 1993 Storm of the Century, 1996 Lake Huron cyclone ("Hurroncane"), and even Storm Daniel (Europe/Africa storm also called "Cyclone Daniel"). Non-weather articles do this as well, including Persian Gulf and even Nile ("Nile River" and "River Nile"). There is enough precedent on Wikipedia that this should not even be a question. Despite what editors like Jfrimpong945, "one country" can be enough for lead sentence inclusion (as clearly demonstrated here). I am surprised to see other weather-related editors like Wildfireupdateman and Departure– and EF5 oppose it, even with Wildfireupdateman saying official names don't merit lead inclusion. In-fact, weather articles help prove they do, even for one country's official name. For all of that, I am a strong support of having the lead mention "known in the United States as the Gulf of America", which matches dozens of other Wikipedia articles, including Featured Articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone except for conservatives and high-level government that doesn't do anything on the ground using Gulf of America though, that's my issue. I'm in America and I know it as the Gulf of Mexico as does everyone around me. Departure– (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the United States to, and I will continue to call it "Gulf of Mexico". However, I'm looking at the facts and Wikipedia policy and precedent. There should not be any argument on whether we have enough RS to say it is an alt-name; that seems fairly self-explanatory given the media coverage of this supposed name-change. But likewise, for major devastating typhoons that maybe just barely impact the Philippines, we still include the Philippines name in the lead...without fail. For example, last year's Typhoon Gaemi caused less than $2 million (USD) in damage to the Philippines out of the over $4.5 billion (USD) that it caused in damage to other countries. The name "Super Typhoon Carina" is still included in the lead, despite not much coverage with that name. I'm not an advocate for "Gulf of America" at all. However, precedent and honestly policy seems clear that it should indeed be listed as an alt name (OR Rant...), no matter how insane this change is and how no one will actually really be using it except a select few. That said, the stupid name change will probably easily be remembered for a long, long time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Names little used in English should be taken out of other articles, not added to this one. (t · c) buidhe 14:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who started my Wikipedia journey by mostly writing about hurricanes in my earlier days here, I can understand where you're coming from with your analogy to how we list the alternate names used by the Philippines for Pacific typhoons. But I don't think that analogy works, at least not yet. As I mentioned and you noted, even the American government is still using "Gulf of Mexico" in new publications created after the signing of this executive order. Not even America calls it Gulf of America, at least not yet. At this time, I'm okay with us still mentioning in the article body under the "Name" section that Trump has in fact signed an executive order intended to initiate a process to change the name used by the American government. But right now, to say "also known in the United States as the Gulf of America", either in the lede or anywhere else in the article body, would be incorrect.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Its understandable then, if it will mention the US Jfrimpong945 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the lead mention the new name when the new name refers to a subregion WITHIN the Gulf of Mexico? Does the article also mention all the other subregions in the lead? I don't think so. Gulf of Mexico and "Gulf of America" refer to different things. The new name doesn't replace the common name and deceiving political stunts do not dictate Wikipedia what to do. DemianStratford (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Textbook recentism and crystal ball. --Spekkios (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose bolded alternate name. We have too many articles cluttered with several names none of which has 10 percent as much usage as the main one; that does a disservice to our readers whose main interest in the topic is probably not "what else is this called". Oppose any lead inclusion per WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 14:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a mention. AP's saying that's basically how they plan on handling this - [5]. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as Ravensfire's AP link shows, there are no standards for naming international geographical features. When different groups refer to a geographical feature by different names, our usual approach is to follow WP:COMMONNAME for the article title and include alternate names depending on their prominence. Of course the Persian Gulf naming dispute is coming up here: it's directly parallel, with competing interests wanting the body of water to be named different things for purely political reasons. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, we just present information. But, as the executive order itself says, only the portion within US territorial waters is being referred to by the alternate title, and it's too minor of a point until anyone outside of the United States starts using the name in common practice. At best, the lede could have something like "portions within the territorial waters of the United States are referred to as the "Gulf of America" by the United States government", but that's a pretty awkward and minor point for the lede. It should just be described under the Name subsection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico Renaming - International Hydrographic Organization

This isn't to raise an issue as much as it is to clearly provide a place to outline what renaming could look like moving forward.

Let's be clear - the U.S. president cannot unilaterally rename an international gulf which was named 400 years ago. However, if a dispute does arise in the future, then I recommend that ANY attempt to rename this page follows rulings/statements of the International Hydrographic Organization, in which both the U.S. and Mexico are members of.

This should hopefully provide a simple solution and prevent any renaming attempts in the future. Wait for the only international body recognized on issues like this to rename it, or don't rename the page at all. Foxterria (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this approach, and would recommend that it is adopted as the standard for the naming of all international bodies of water. Significant controversies can be noted in body text where appropriate, and where alternative names have widespread acceptance, noted in the lead*, but no-one has the right to rename international waters unilaterally.
See News style#Lead. Donald Albury 14:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official Florida Executive Office now refers to Gulf as "Gulf of America"

https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/note-press-executive-order-number-25-13-emergency-management-gulf-winter-weather TheEmperorAnt (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

  WHEREAS, an area of low pressure moving across the Gulf of America, interacting with Arctic air, will bring widespread impactful winter weather to North Florida beginning Tuesday, January 21, 2025; and  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmperorAnt (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Gulf of America"?

This is partially addressed to @Golikom, who reverted my edit removing the line. But it's also just a general discussion, because I keep seeing this information pop up. Currently, the article says Donald Trump signed an executive order directing U.S. federal agencies to initiate a renaming process specifically designating the northernmost portion of the Gulf within U.S. borders as the Gulf of America (emphasis mine). This phrase — suggesting that the "Gulf of America" does not refer to the same area as the Gulf of Mexico — is not supported by any reliable source (which all say exactly the opposite: that Trump is renaming the Gulf of Mexico, not a part of the Gulf of Mexico), and appears to me to be a violation of WP:No original research (and is also unverifiable and most likely untrue), which is why I removed it. Does anyone have further thoughts? DecafPotato (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page, and policies and quidelines on the content of articles do not apply. Unless a comment on a talk page violates the Talk page guidelines, or is otherwise in violation of a behavioral policy or guideline, you should not have deleted it. Donald Albury 14:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything from the talk page. I was referring only to the bold sentence above, from the article itself, which I removed and it was reinstalled by Golikom, which is why I started this discussion to find consensus. DecafPotato (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DecafPotato See Talk:Gulf of Mexico#What exactly does the executive order rename? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any reason to believe that Trump’s EO is referring to an area within or distinct from the Gulf of Mexico. It seems to be a made up argument to reduce weight for a possible future name change. anikom15 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re the last bit — reduce weight for a possible future name change. No need for to make up reasons to reduce weight, there would be no reason to change it even if the entire American government, media, and public started using it. We wouldn't change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf just because the Saudis use it, or Sea of Japan to Korean East Sea. This article will never be titled Gulf of America.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 11:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said change the article name? Can you read the OP? It's about content in the article. I know you're hysterical but try to stay on topic. Wikipedia does indeed list the alternative name for the Persian Gulf right in the lead. So what exactly is your point? You don't have one, you're just upset.
I wasn't replying to the OP, silly. Please cool it down and remember to sign your comments.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ

Do you guys think of having a FAQ page for name change? Spclmnt (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond referencing WP:COMMONNAME, here's an additional suggested draft point: "The Gulf is an international body of water, and there are many governmental and non-governmental authorities that have the ability to determine its naming for themselves. The U.S. federal government is a major one, but not the only one, and its naming decisions are not binding on other entities." Just a draft and a suggestion, feel free to improve. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can set one up. There's a template at Template:Frequently asked questions. How useful they are is debatable, as most people don't actually read what's on the talk page before posting. But it can make it easier for people to answer the same edit request over and over by saying 'please read the FAQs'. Valereee (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If reading from mobile, the FAQ is hidden. – robertsky (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name is wrong

Why is this article called "Gulf of Mexico"?

It is the Gulf of America. 2600:1012:B1B9:597B:0:21:1864:2501 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia rules, as discussed previously, the English Wikipedia doesn't just automatically agree with political moves made by the US government. There are other countries bordering this body of water. See previous discussions on this subject for more info. (eye)rizz (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk semi'd one day

I hate to do this, but for 24 hours, maybe it's worth it. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your optimism that the disruption will only last a day. — Czello (music) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just clarified, for those who have already weighed in: the article itself had already been semi'd long term, I semi'd the talk for 24 hours because it was attracting so much disruptiveness. I'm totally open to the idea it might not need it, please do weigh in. Valereee (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Support. Anomalocarididae (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk semi'd 31 hours

Again I hate to do this, but the minute the protection expired the disruption started back up. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "In popular culture section" is too short and misses large portions of it's the history. The alternative name was referenced in folk tales prior to a comedian joke. Referencing the comedian joke as the dawn of the alternative name is misleading and is observably obvious that it's inclusion is solely to delegitimizeOtterstone (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to expand on the history of the Gulf of Mexico, while you unfortunately can't currently edit the article due to rampant vandalism, you're welcome to provide reliable sources here that expand on the body's history. Meanwhile, I've moved the contents of the 'In popular culture' section into the 'Name' section, since 'In popular culture' fails to justify its own existence by solely consisting of name-related facts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Section

The "Discuss here" section is preventing archiving. Is it really useful enough for that? Valereee (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed. I don't think it was doing what it was trying to do (keep everything in one section) and it was preventing autoarchiving. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now the link from the FAQ doesn't link to anything, though. Reconrabbit 18:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we fix that instead of breaking everything else? Valereee (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that linking to the RfC to describe "current consensus" at least makes sense. I'll keep an eye on it and if section titles keep changing I (or someone else) can delink. Reconrabbit 21:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use a permalink if you know what section you want to link to. Check WP:permalink. Valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make the page proper and put Gulf of America

This argument is being restarted over and over again. There are already multiple things open on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

At least put "Also called Gulf of America" in there. If not, this page is quite outdated. Ridiculous. It's been changed officially, so change it here! BeProper (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the many, many sections above discussing this before starting another one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed by who? That is not how things work. Read the discussions above. DemianStratford (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed by U.S. President Donald J. Trump, who has full authority to change it within the U.S. We must recognize this. BeProper (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually speak on discussions like this but you are making yourself look like an idiot. The president of a country, whether it is the United States or not, has no right to change the name of a gulf or any seas...ever... TBJ10RH (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name only applies to a section of the Gulf of Mexico, similarly to the Gulf of Campeche (except it's a political instead of a geological division). It is not the entire thing. Gulf of Mexico and "Gulf of America" refer to different things, so no, the page shouldn't be renamed and the political name of a section in the Gulf of Mexico shouldn't be in the lead. You must recognize this. DemianStratford (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All WP:RS indicate that the name refers to the whole Gulf- this idea that the Gulf of America is a subset of the Gulf of Mexico seems to be entirely invented by Wikipedia editors and no news articles are saying that. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, please see WP:COMMONNAME. For two, Wikipedia is not an arm of the US government and is in no way bound to do what the President says. For three, determining standard names for international waters is the business of the International Hydrographic Organization, not the White House. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sections, again

Hey, Knowledgekid87, re: this edit...that keeps things from archiving. Can we come up with a better solution? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not manually archive it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like letting the 'bot do it or when necessary clicking 'archive', but with this format neither is possible. You also can't tell how long since a given subsection has been active, at least with the gadgets I've got enabled. If you'd like to take on keeping up with dozens of sections, checking recent posts in each subsection and manually archiving anything that hasn't been responded to in a few days, it's fine with me, but unless someone is willing to do it, this page needs a bot. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also someone would need to take on moving new sections into the proper home section. Make the page proper and put Gulf of America, for instance, needs to be moved. It feels like a lot of work when we can just leave everything as its own section and archive as seems appropriate, but if those are tasks someone wants to commit to, I have no objection. Valereee (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now like 90% of the discussion is about "Gulf of America". Since alot of the sections are duplicate arguments it makes sense to put them together. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but when I undid this same type of organization a few hours ago, there were sections that hadn't been edited in two weeks, which I then could archive (and which I could in a glance see archiving was appropriate for, because they noted the last time the section had been edited). Now two entire gigantic sections are showing as having been edited recently...some of the edit requests are from three days ago and haven't been edited since. And there's not 'archive this' button. So someone is going to have to keep track of those. In the meantime this talk is growing by leaps and bounds, and the discussions aren't being started in the same head section, so someone has to move them. Valereee (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico&oldid=1271391664"