Talk:Gulf of Mexico/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

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.

---

Gulf of America 204.246.39.211 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2025

Re name the gulf of Mexico to it's now official name of gulf of America. You don't gotta like it but it is the name now 2600:1014:B14C:977C:24F0:70FF:FE2F:C4D2 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See pervious discussions. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Untitled

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.

---

Sorry if wrong, but isnt the new name Gulf of America? 2605:59C0:4057:4A10:C80:C220:6DAB:AD81 (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a new name desired by the US President. This is a global encyclpaedia. The rest of the world is not compelled to sway with the desires of the president of one country. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm American. I'd consider anyone calling it the "Gulf of America" to be some combination of coward, idiot, or asshole, and definitely in at least one of those categories. I'm certainly not alone among Americans in this opinion. I don't mean this as a WP:FORUM thing, but I think it worth noting that the attempted renaming is absolutely not something that Americans in general are in agreement with. CAVincent (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2025 (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.

Page error: Location listed as Mediterranean

In the basic information breakdown table, it says Mediterranean Sea; should it not say Caribbean Sea? 2601:443:C200:EA70:155C:3547:4E1A:17E3 (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The location is listed as American Mediterranean Sea; the page for the sea bordering Europe, Asia, and Africa is Mediterranean Sea. The American Mediterranean Sea contains the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico within it. Departure– (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Why no Gulf of the United States in the lead?

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.

---

I know the moratorium on article name changes, but why isn't the lead at least the way we do all other leads at Wikipedia? The Gulf of Mexico, also known as Gulf of the United States,...? It is an alternate official name. My kids are being taught it in school. Would it be normal here to add that factoid to the lead like we do most other articles? Even as a footnote; The Gulf of Mexico^(note). So not change the article title and not change the first use in the lead, but add that it is an alternate name in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2025

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.

---

“Change Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America” Mbogolf429 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2025 (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.

Gulf of America

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.

---

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.

---

Time to update this page. past time. 2603:9001:5D00:2608:3494:FDCA:82B2:75B2 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2025 (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.

I agree. Refusing to update it only stands to show the reddit-ification of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.56.255 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2025

Source 65: change "went to ashore" to "went ashore" and change the date from 1689 to 1699.

"Pollution" section: change km to km². Cixtpide (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up. Donald Albury 15:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2025

Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. ~2025-32889-33 (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See the #FAQ — Czello ^(music) 07:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No, see the FAQs. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2025

Change Name of body of water to Gulf Of America Chrisgarabedian (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2025

Change name from Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America Chrisgarabedian (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done per all discussion above. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Somebody please semi-protect this talk page indefinitely. Georgia guy (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Protection requests belong to WP:RFPP. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You can propose to remove the moratorium(If you like to do so)

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.

---

Quick help for people who is stuck, you can actually propose a removal of the moratorium for Gulf of America.

Helpful policies that might help you reach a consensus for the change: WP:CCC, WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Article titles

Thanks TyphoonHurricaneCyclone (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I would hope that the moratorium would include discussion of the moratorium. (Also, I obviously realize that this comment would be in violation of such a moratorium interpretation. I don't mind it being hatted or removed along with the above, if other editors agree with my interpretation.) CAVincent (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes this does seem like a back door way to keep the issue of renaming alive. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Or it's a brilliant piece of reverse psychology to get drive-by talk page editors to read Wikipedia policy. Einsof (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have to do that, they are not going to do it anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Sigh... Einsof (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

While the moratorium discussion didn't cover a moratorium on discussing the moratorium itself, it would be hard to discuss the moratorium without discusing what the moratorium covers in which case the discussion would be shut down. TarnishedPath^talk 21:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, it seems procedurally a bad idea to have a moratorium so absolute it prevents any challenge to itself, anywhere. On the other hand, allowing challenges to the moratorium here, on one of the pages the moratorium is designed to protect, would largely render it useless. I guess this is one of those things where, if someone really wishes to challenge the status quo, they should find an appropriate avenue in the wikipedia bureaucracy to do so. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Probably a close review at WP:AN, after an appropriate discussion with the closer. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward to the moratorium on discussions about lifting the moratorium. And then the discussions about whether that moratorium should be lifted... OceanGunfish (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and unnecessary. The moratorium exists for a reason. People were going crazy over this. It should have been a 24 month moratorium and we should require a confirmed account to even edit the Talk Page at this point. The last proposal to rename was started by an anon editor with a grand total of one edit prior to launching his proposal. Let sleeping dogs lie, especially avoiding politically motivated Wikipedia edits/name changes. My 2¢. Bill Heller (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

And my 2¢ is that is complete 100% baloney. Seven months ago that was true... it was out of control. This time it was shut down with a moratorium that was all encompassing when a discussion barely started going. And it was a discussion on changing the title, not what was in the lead or prose. That was shut down without a peep likely because of political motivation. And two years would be absolutely nuts and against the whole purpose of Wikipedia discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

You continue to accuse editors you disagree with of being politically motivated without any evidence, as you've done on other pages with similar discussions. I'd like to remind you, again, of WP:AGF. Turnagra (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

This was in response to the prior "politically motivated" mention. However, the Denali name/rename discussion was certainly shown to have politics involved and this is very similar. You seem to think Wikipedia is some neutral bastion of opinion, and I assure you has not been so at least in my decades of participation. But my point was not on the politics but on Wikipedia rules and policies, and this moratorium overreach stinks of breaking the very pillars we stand upon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fyunck(click) that the current moratorium is overreach. It is obvious that community consensus is currently against changing the name of the article and against mentioning the name change promulgated in the executive order any more prominently than it currently is in the article, but I believe the current moratorium goes against the principal of open discussion in Wikipedia, as well as being largely ineffective. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive", I believe it would be sufficient to cite that sentence to every editor who proposes to change the name of the article, or to give more prominence to the contents of the executive order, and to treat editors who continue to push such proposals after being informed of the current consensus as disruptive. Donald Albury 15:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in favor of GoA (rather worsened) since the last Moratorium so the extension is valid. --Denniss (talk)

That doesn't mean the way we have things worded should stay broken. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that the moratorium has been ineffective. The entire point is to stop the naming discussion from being held again and again until one side is bludgeoned to death out of exhaustion. I share the worry that continuing to allow discussion on the moratorium itself will effectively render the moratorium meaningless as the discussions would be inevitably naming discussions by stealth. People need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one and leave it sit for a while. Turnagra (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

We did leave it sit for a long while. Then it should have been open for effective discussion again, not slammed shut at the drop of a pin. It has effectively been turned into a permanent moratorium on all aspects of the article, not just the title. We don't even know if it was going to get out of hand again because it was shut down with a heap of I dont like its. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) The topic was open for discussion for a month; it was not immediately shut down as you are stating. Consensus was reached that no new items supported a change and for the moratorium to stay for an additional year. I agree with Turnagra that you may want to read WP:DROPTHESTICK. This current discussion appears to be going against the moratorium (which has an exception of International Hydrographic Organization renaming the body of water which has not happen). As such, I suggest we pause the discussion as all arguments are just repeats of what already has been discussed and are not being productive. And wait for the moratorium to end or for something new to come about. EulerianTrail (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Not quite. There was a proposal to rename on Nov 19. It wasn't long and obtrusive. It was closed on Dec 5. A proposal to rename the article! Somehow that turned into consensus to discuss nothing for a year! That's not what moratoriums at Wikipedia are for. There was nothing bad happening, we didn't have reams of posts... and lots of stuff was NEVER discussed. We don't just keep adding continual moratoriums unless it gets pathetic and we need a time out. Sure we can do something about the hit-and-run IPs that demand a re-titling and we never see them again. But stop the drop the stick cr@p, as I'm answering others. There was no real rational for a moratorium and certainly not on wording in prose or infobox. And a year? We might as well have made it 10 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion was closed and then re-opened by an involved editor. I thank them for doing that. There seems to be some confusion however about my opinion on this topic. Do I think there was enough discussion (like there was six months ago) for Wikipedia to issue a one year moratorium... No. I feel this was a preemptive moratorium. However I see consensus as overwhelming for the title to remain at Gulf of Mexico. I can't even fathom that we would ever move or change this title. While I think the article title moratorium was too quick, the outcome on the title should not be in doubt. It's Gulf of Mexico for Wikipedia. Drive-by IP posts claiming otherwise should be removed at once! Even non-drivebys that give no new evidence should be removed with "nothing new" in the summary. I hope that's clear.

My complaint is that the moratorium encompasses far too wide a set of topics that haven't even been discussed. Like rewording the lead or tweaking other items in prose or infobox. My own students are asking me why the lead doesn't say "Gulf of Mexico (also known as Gulf of America)" like so many of our other articles do, and I sit back and tell them it's Wikipedia and it's not like other encyclopedias such as Britannica, or NOAA or the National Park service. I feel Wikipedia can be better than this, but not if all discussions are banned or have moratoriums before they even start. That's not the way things are supposed to be at Wikipedia and they surely weren't when I started here 20 years ago. I will always be in favor of our readers and the info they receive here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Two of those sources are US government and thus not WP:INDEPENDENT in this, while Britannica's approach objectively goes against our naming conventions (I say as a big proponent of dual names where they reflect the actual name of the place, such as in NZ examples). Your complaint is noted, but the consensus of the community is that the current approach is fine and that now is still too soon to see how usage will settle on the long term. Launching a quixotic one-editor campaign to change that in the hope that other editors tire out is not the way to address that, and there are surely more productive uses for all of our time. The close should have stood and I hope someone else comes along and puts this discussion out of its misery. Turnagra (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You'll note I started none of the topics... it's not my campaign. It seems to be your campaign to disparage me and go against WP:AGF. And while independent sources are required for notability they are legitimate sources to show usage. We need to balance the curtailing of nutty proposals while still allowing reasonable discussion on content. I simply don't feel Wikipedia should go down the rabbit hole of censoring all content discussion just because editors want to sweep a topic under the rug. That's not the Wikipedia I came to nor the one it could evolve into. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, regardless of the quality of the sources or any of that, having this discussion here on this page is a violation of the existing moratorium. If you want the moratorium lifted, you should find an appropriate venue to discuss the propriety of the moratorium, and do so there. This discussion has strayed from that original point, and should either return to it, or stop. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2025 (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.

• For anyone who may be interested, I have posted about this discussion at the administrators' noticeboard; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive campaigning at Gulf of Mexico. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2026

Not sure if it's just an issue with my browser (Firefox desktop), but the Nahua name of "Ayollohco Mexihco" in the "Name" section of the article is displayed in a weirdly large font. I wasn't able to spot anything in the page source which would cause this, but if it is a common display issue it'd be good (I think) if the font was more consistent. ~2026-30267-6 (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems to be fine to me on Firefox. The underlying template for this link is {{wikt-lang}} which hasn't changed since 2024. Do you happen to have an extension installed that might be causing a conflict? - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but perhaps some random about:config setting is doing something weird. Regardless, if it's not a problem for other people, all is well. ~2026-30267-6 (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Version 147.0.1 of the 64-bit version of Firefox is showing the size as normal with the rest of the text, so it does seem to be an about:config issue or similar. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll mark this as answered so it disappears from the pending edit requests list. Sorry I can't drill down the cause any further for you! - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Glossing?

I added a "What" tag to the map caption that says "English nautical chart dated 1775 labels "the Bay of Mexico", now glossing "Mexico" as an alternative name for New Spain" because I had no idea what "glossing" meant in that context. It was reverted by User:EF5 with an Edit summary of "Cambridge defines "glossing" as "to provide an explanation for a word or phrase". I thank EF5 for that information, but I still don't think the caption makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium Discussion: Electric Boogaloo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snowballing support for extending the moratorium 12 months. In fairness to those wanting to discuss the issue again, the title was again debated in a discussion opened in November and strongly rejected. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

---

It has been a month since the last moratorium ended, which was put in place due to previous disruption and already the disruption has returned with no good basis for relitigating this.
Therefore I propose a fresh moratorium for 12 months on all discussion about renaming, retitling, or moving this article, introducing new names into the lead, and discussions about new names.
Pinging @Talmage, @Tbhotch, @Super Goku V, @Chess, @CAVincent, @Chicdat, @Einsof, @Slatersteven, @GN22, @Simonm223, @Feeglgeef, @Sophisticatedevening, @Donald Albury, @SyaWgnignahCehT, @Kowal2701, @SMcCandlish, @Pppery, @Eyer, @Ravensfire, @Mast303, @Frank Anchor, @NickCT, @Departure–, @LakesideMiners, @SarekOfVulcan and @Newimpartial as editors involved in the previous RfC.
Pinging @Babysharkboss2, @OceanGunfish, @EulerianTrail, @Markalexander47, @Willondon, @Khajidha, @Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, @DJ Cane as editors involved in the discussion above and not already pinged.
Pinging @Alsee, @BarrelProof, @Elmidae, @GenevieveDEon, @Myceteae, @Vanilla Wizard, @Wildfireupdateman from the previous moratorium discussion and not already pinged. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• I support a moratorium. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Support moratorium of 6-12 months. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve months seems excessive. I am not sure yet what I would support. Donald Albury 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support moratorium. We're not seeing any common usage of the term. The purpose of the last moratorium was to see if we could revisit this if things changed – things have not changed. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 01:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support moratorium of at least 6 months with a preference for 12. As noted above, the common name has not changed. We've done all the revisiting we need to do. We shouldn't waste community time dealing with this; the disruption is likely to be persistent, with most being trivial drive-bys but also the risk of flares. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support a six month moratorium and no longer. The “official” usage of the term by team Trump has died down as they move onto other nonsense, but there are still disruptions on this article. The term did not gain any mainstream traction during the hurricane season (though it was an abnormally quiet season on the Gulf). I strongly oppose a year, that is too long. Frank Anchor 01:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)in
• Support moratorium as described above. Prefer twelve months. It seems clear the consensus won't change unless the term actually gains a lot more traction in secondary sources. I don't see that happening in less than a year if at all. _signed, Willondon (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support moratorium until well after the next Presidential election. We all know the Gulf of America thing is purely a push from the current president and his supporters. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that this article is probably unique in needing a longer than usual moratorium. EulerianTrail (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support moratorium of at least 6 months and preferably 12. All that's really changed in the last six months is that supporters of the name change have mostly moved on to other things. I believe part of the logic of choosing six months instead of twelve in the last moratorium discussion was to see if hurricane season saw an uptick in "Gulf of America", so we may as well let another hurricane season go by. I just reread the relevant part of this article, and it seems satisfactory as it currently stands - just that brief acknowledgment of the issue is all that it merits. I certainly understand that a full year moratorium might feel too long, and in most cases would agree, but this is a topic with a high propensity to generate time-consuming discussion despite little prospect of a new consensus. Better to let editors do other things with their time. CAVincent (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support 12 month moratorium; nothing has changed since the last moratorium; if anything, the usage of Gulf of America decreased.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support a 12 month moratorium. President Trump hasn't miraculously gained the ability to rename international waters, nor has his attempt to make it happen had any impact on international usage. And sadly, people who can't acknowledge this do not seem, collectively, to have found the ability to leave this article alone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support as yet again anther waste of everyones time. has been launched. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support 12 month no widespread changes in how its been referred to. Forgot this even was a thing except briefly when it shows up on my watchlist.

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support: No change to the situation. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support bare minimum 6 months. Trump cannot magically alter reliable sources to fit his narrative. Thanks for the ping, TarnishedPath. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 14:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Aw, I missed an RFC on this? (I wasn't pinged *sadface*) Support, obviously. I anticipate this being added to WP:LAME before 2028; Sea of Japan and Lake Michigan–Huron are already there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Support a moratorium until January 21, 2029. There is no indication of growing recognition of the proposed rename at all; as WFUM notes it seems to be trending in the opposite direction. Any editor who wants to reopen this debate again during the present United States federal administration needs to demonstrate a good reason, such as official recognition by the government of any other English-speaking nation, to believe that any of that has changed before wasting everyone's time with another destined-to-be-snow-closed move proposal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support for 12 months, just another time-waste for everyone involved here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support for 6 months. No longer. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support 12 month moratorium. I would settle for 6. My sense is that "Gulf of Mexico" has not been widely adopted by independent, reliable sources and the push for official usage has waned. A full 12-month moratorium will give ample time for sources to accumulate to properly assess stable usage long after the initial controversy. (I doubt there will be support for a change after 12 months but that's beside the point 🔮) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not the way Wikipedia moratoriums are supposed to work... like an automatic drivers license renewal. The moratorium ended, people give their case for new changes for awhile, especially for wording rather than article name change. You can't have a new moratorium extension on a subject that hasn't even been discussed... that's totally unfair to our Wikipedia editors and readers. It looks like only one serious topic has started since the moratorium ended. While I would agree that to bring about a title change the arguer would need to show a shift in public usage with sources that have changed (which I don't see has happened), but small discussions on tweaks to lead and stuff need to be able to be discussed. Just slapping continual moratoriums because we don't like to discuss things is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work and I'm actually shocked that so many would want to expunge talk on the subject with such a broad pen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Fyunck(click) has a point, but I would suggest taking a leaf out of the Sega Genesis article - accepting that the two subjects are different in scale, but both are based on geographical namings.

The talk page is frequently beset with requests to change the article name - so much so that it was decided that unless new arguments could be put forward, simply regurgitating the same refuted arguments without checking talk/archives first was disruptive and would be dismissed out of hand.

Seems to me a similar process might work here - if the discussions are genuinely new in context, then they can be entertained - otherwise there is precedent to just remove them as disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact we're having this discussion means the moratorium is not "automatic". NickCT (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I could agree with you on changing the article title, but this moratorium request is extremely broad. I don't think there should be a moratorium at all on discussing the subject's placement in the lead or changing other items in prose. Those are legit content discussions that haven't even taken place yet. Also, Nov 8 and May 8 are days when discussions can again take place and not everyone sets their phone alarms for those dates. You have to allow a bit of time for folks to come in and state their positions and add new info. There is only one small ongoing discussion on the subject other than a flyby ip with no sources. The flybys should just be deleted. But there really isnt enough to warrant a moratorium at this point. Moratoriums are supposed to be serious fixes when a new set of converstions keep going on ad nauseum. That hasn't happened here that I can see. And certainly not on content rather than a page move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support extension for 12 months. Nothing has moved in favor of Gulf of America, rather the opposite. --Denniss (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2025 (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.

November 8, 2025 Moratorium Ended: Proposal to Resume Naming Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not moved and moratorium on discussions re-enacted for 12 months in a later section. -- Beland (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

---

I want to offer a perspective that supports including the term “Gulf of America” more visibly, while still keeping Gulf of Mexico as the primary name.

I fully agree that Gulf of Mexico is the overwhelmingly common name in reliable sources and should remain the base title. However, I think there is room for the article title to reflect alternate terminology—particularly since “Gulf of America” is used in some U.S. contexts, even if not yet dominant in major international sources.

My suggestion is a compromise format like: Gulf of Mexico (America)

This allows the established, widely sourced name to remain first while still acknowledging the existence of the alternate name. Wikipedia uses this parenthetical approach in other situations where a widely recognized alternative or regional name exists, even if it isn’t the global common name.

I also think the lead should include a short, neutral note that: “In some U.S. contexts, the body of water is also referred to as the Gulf of America.” This doesn’t imply it’s the primary name, but it does reflect that the term exists and avoids the impression that Wikipedia is ignoring it entirely.

I understand and respect the points made about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. I’m not arguing that “Gulf of America” is the common name in the strict policy sense. Instead, I’m proposing: keep Gulf of Mexico as the main name (in line with reliable sources), acknowledge the alternative term, and use a parenthetical in the title to reflect both names in a balanced, non-promotional way.

My overall goal is clarity for readers: many might have heard “Gulf of America” and search for it, so representing both names upfront seems helpful while still respecting policy. Happy to hear other thoughts on this approach.

Since the moratorium is now over, I believe it’s appropriate to rehash this and continue the discussion.

Thanks, -Annon ~2025-34850-32 (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That might cause people to think the page is just about those bits of the Gulf controlled by the USA Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC).

Unneeded and trivial, in my opinoin. It is fine in the section its at. Anywhere else is WP:UNDUE. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 14:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Changing the title to "Gulf or Mexico (America)" makes "America" look more like a disambiguator than an alternate name. I can support an addition like you propose to the lede, but I can't support renaming the article. A redirect from "Gulf of America" to "Gulf of Mexico" is surely sufficient for those who search for the "Gulf of America" name. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 14:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Parentheses are used in article titles as disambiguators to distinguish multiple articles with the same subject name – compare Orange (fruit) and Orange (color). Putting parentheses in this article title would imply that there is another Gulf of Mexico somewhere else. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I understand the concerns raised about the title and how adding “(America)” could imply a geographic limitation or look like a disambiguator. I’m happy to concede on the page title and keep Gulf of Mexico as-is.

What I still think is reasonable, though, is a brief, neutral mention in the lead noting that “Gulf of America” is an alternate name used in some U.S. contexts. I don’t believe that rises to WP:UNDUE, since it’s not giving the alternate name equal weight—only acknowledging that it exists and is sometimes used. Especially with a redirect already in place, a short sentence in the lead would help readers who encounter or search for the term understand the relationship.

I’m open to phrasing suggestions, but I think including a simple line such as:

“In some United States contexts, the gulf is also referred to as the ‘Gulf of America.’”

would be a fair compromise that improves clarity without implying any change to the common name. ~2025-34850-32 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It already is acknowledged. In its own section. Hell, "name" is the first section in the article. Donald Trump thinks he owns something, and so he named something he wants to name it. That isn't on the same level of importance as the Gulf of Mexico's oil importance and size in the lede. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

If we must (I am unsure it is needed, this may change again when Trump is no longer president) it should be "The Gulf of Mexico (Spanish: Golfo de México, USA: Gulf of Amercia) is an oceanic basin and a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean" or some such. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

To me that implies "Golfo de Mexico" translates to "Gulf of America". The brackets are meant for the original language version, no? Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

MAybe, how do we deal with similar situations? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

IIRC Adam's Bridge has "alternatively known as Rama Setu" or something like that. I wouldn't argue against "(Golfo de Mexico) known federally in the United States as the Gulf of America..." or something similar. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That almost works. Why not just "known in the United States as the Gulf of America" Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Becuase it isn't known everywhere as the GoA, only on the federal level. From what I see, sources either use both, or just GoM, so its not the common name, nor the official one. Only recognized on a federal level by the U.S. government. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 15:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

But not only on the federal level. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Before the president decided to call it the Gulf of America, there is Nakhodka Bay which was historically known as Gulf of America. Based on sources and talking with people in person, if someone said Gulf of America, I would expect them to mean Nakhodka Bay. The suggestion to rename the article or stating in the lead paragraph is WP:undue as this is just a fringe idea that was ordered by one person. I would say to wait until the next presidential administration to see if the renaming actually sticks. EulerianTrail (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say that we should put Gulf of Mexico (known federally in the United States as the Gulf of America)…

Markalexander47 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC) Markalexander47 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think "In some United States contexts, the gulf is also referred to as the ‘Gulf of America.’” in the lede is a good compromise. "Some contexts" recognizes that is only official for U.S. federal agencies, and is also used by a small portion of its citizenry. I can see sympathy for the WP:UNDUE argument: contrary to the typical slow, organic development of language, this change is by fiat by an administration which will inevitably change. Perhaps if it survives another few years the changed name may carry more due weight. But some may know it as "Gulf of America" and not be aware of the restricted regional nature of the name, so a brief mention in the lede (as above) could be helpful. The current redirect for "Gulf of america" (not sure why the minuscule "a") is to "Gulf of Mexico naming controversy"; I think it should redirect here. Between brief mention in lede, a pointer in the first section to the controversy article, and the redirect, I think we'd have helpful improvements for readers who know it as "Gulf of America" and are unaware of the controversy. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Saying "in some United States context" still seems to be WP:UNDUE. I think it will be more proper to state that the United States federal government uses the name "Gulf of America" instead of the common name "Gulf of Mexico." EulerianTrail (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

One thing I meant to add: at some point, somewhere, I thought I read that many/all of the maps/search apps return "Gulf of America" only to queries coming from the U.S., not the rest of the world. [citation needed] _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you type Gulf of Mexico into Google and go to maps it changes your search bar to say Gulf of America. EulerianTrail (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Executive orders are only binding on the executive branch. Do the legislative and judicial branches also refer to the GoA? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It's still the Gulf of Mexico outside of sources that we have already deemed generally unreliable . Phrasing like "in some United States contexts" is unhelpfully vague. Referring to U.S. federal agencies specifically is much better. Moreover, a topic that only gets one short paragraph within one section is not a good candidate for prominent placement in the lede, per MOS:LEDE (which is WP:DUE on steroids, as it were). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Non-US user here: when I type 'Gulf of Mexico' into Google and go to maps, the URL and search term remain untouched, the response is titled "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)", and the slide-show of different maps shows only one where it's labelled as "Gulf of America (Gulf of Mexico)". The results also included a link to a BBC article from February 11, 2025 , stating that the changes are only for U.S. users. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

This does sway me more in favour of WP:UNDUE. There are non-government civilians that refer to it as such. I should amend my comment "not [being] aware of the restricted regional nature of the name", to "not aware of the extremely tiny percentage of English speakers that call it GoA". Another argument for WP:UNDUE in lede. I do think a change of the "Gulf of America" redirect to this article would be an improvement, though. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the "Gulf of America" should be directed to a disambiguation page linking Gulf of Mexico, the name controversy, and Nakhodka Bay articles. EulerianTrail (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I like that idea re the redirect. As for the rest, I'm sensing that the consensus here is that GoA is adequately covered in the body right now, and is undue in the lede. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 OceanGunfish (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to show quantitatively how undue this all is, a recent examination of U.S. newspapers shows that as of September, "Gulf of Mexico" outnumbers "Gulf of America" more than eightfold. And again, this is already restricted to U.S. newspapers, where one naturally expects a skew in favor of the latter term. Exactly what segment of the readership are these proposals supposed to cater to? Einsof (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Oppose on the basis that Gulf of Mexico is the clear common name and most references to the term Gulf of America remain either in U.S. government sources or articles written about the name change itself. There are very few other uses of the name Gulf of America outside of U.S. political discussions. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The OP recognises that 'Gulf of Mexico' is the WP:COMMONNAME and yet wants to change the article name anyway. This is a none-starter. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose a rename but support adding , "also known as Gulf of America" to the lead. We do this for most articles even when the main name out numbers the alternate by 10-1. It has another name that people hear in the news and in the press so why not acknowledge it simply and quickly and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to the status quo. There's been little change in the sources in regards to "Gulf of America" versus "Gulf of Mexico". There shouldn't be any changes here. NickCT (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2025 (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.

Text of caption - image showing sediment from MS and Atchafalya Rivers

The detail caption shows this: "Sediment-laden water pours into the northern Gulf of Mexico from the Atchafalaya River (2009)"

This could be amended to state this, more accurate representation: "Sediment-laden water pours into the northern Gulf of Mexico from the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers.(2009)" ~2026-10602-60 (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

or may be better as ".... waters pour ...." ~2026-10602-60 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

It is "water" not "waters" since the Atchafalaya is a distributary of the Mississippi River. It is redundant to say Mississippi for the same reason. If they were disjoint rivers then I would agree (but the Atchafalaya is just a branch of the Mississippi). EulerianTrail (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if a better solution is to omit the names of both rivers? The Atchafalaya is not mentioned anywhere else on the page. Someone unfamiliar with it could easily mistake the Mississippi River delta (which is more prominent in the satellite photo) for the Atchafalaya River delta. It also may be confusing to people unfamiliar with the area because the Mississippi is very clear in the photo due to all the farms and settlements along it, but the Atchafalya is easy to miss between Bayou Vermilion and Bayou Terrebonne. @EulerianTrail: thoughts on removing all river names from the caption? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Tampa...?

In the "Population" section, shouldn't Tampa, FL be listed as one of the cities on the Gulf? It's significantly larger than Pensacola, FL. ~2026-14964-52 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the list of 7 areas

The northeastern gulf's western boundary is stated to be "near Biloxi", while the northwestern gulf's eastern boundary is given as Alabama. Alabama is east of Biloxi so this makes no sense. Biloxi is roughly in the center of the Mississippi coast and is not particularly near the Alabama border; it takes about 40 minutes to drive there. This was paraphrased from the given source, but maybe a better source exists? Terez27 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Consistency issue: IHO limits vs population section

In the Extent section the article cites the IHO’s Limits of Oceans and Seas (S-23) to define the boundaries of the Gulf, including the eastern limit at approximately 83°W. However, the Population section includes Havana among Gulf coastal cities. Since Havana (~82.4°W) lies east of that line, it would fall outside the Gulf of Mexico under the same IHO definition used elsewhere in the article. This seems to be an internal inconsistency: the article adopts the IHO boundary in one section but not in another? Should the population figures be revised to match the cited sources, or alternatively, should the section clarify that it is using a broader or informal definition of the Gulf? —Yazle (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a WP:NPOV, IHO defines the border as west of Havana but NOAA and I am sure others consider Havana to be a coastal city of the Gulf of Mexico. It is in a somewhat fuzzy area as to what it is called, maybe a local source would be nice to include. But to answer your question, it is ok sometimes reliable sources are contradictory. EulerianTrail (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Why is NOAA's definition more important than IHO's, the Gulf is an international body of water shared by three countries. The official definition of one of those countries should not be above the others. Yazle (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying one definition is more important than another. Wikipedia is independent and reports multiple viewpoints. EulerianTrail (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page

People are just saying "It's the Gulf of America!" so much on this talk page and reverting these messages doesn't prevent this from happening permanently. Please permanently semi-protect this talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

It might be better to post this at WP:RFP. But regardless, it seems the page is already semi-protected? Turnagra (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Turnagra, I mean semi-protect the talk page; not the same as semi-protecting the article. Georgia guy (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh of course, my apologies - I was clearly still waking up when I read your message! My point about requesting it over there probably still stands, though. Turnagra (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Georgia guy It's the same process though. Talk pages can be discussed. – The Grid (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I have not done this at RfP, as these kind of requests have died down over the last month. With one exception the last discussions were about different topics, and we don't want to curtail these (productive) discussions. Also see WP:ATPROT. Lectonar (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Meteorological Significance

@The Grid you added an update needed tag. What do you want updated? EulerianTrail (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

@EulerianTrail: Hello! I saw the section mentioned Rita and Wilma from 2005, and there have been several storms since then that can expand the section further. Off the top of my head, there's been Ian (2022), Irma (2017), and Milton (2024) that intensified in a similar manner with the Loop Current. I know some of the articles include studies to help expand it. There's also the hottest ocean temperature record in Manatee Bay from July 2023 to mention (I don't know if NOAA validated it after the announcement). Here's another article talking about Gulf of Mexico

I do see there might be some overlap from the Hydrology section. – The Grid (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that Manatee Bay is more closely connected to the Atlantic Ocean (through Barnes Sound, Card Sound and Biscayne Bay) than to the Gulf of Mexico (through Barnes Sound, various creeks and sounds, and Florida Bay). Donald Albury 15:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC) Correction. - Donald Albury 15:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering that as well when looking up the location but that's why I also posted the second link about the temperatures in the gulf. The bay has to at least be affected by the Florida Current. – The Grid (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Manatee Bay is shallow and really quite isolated, with little turnover in its water, as indicated by the salinity at times reaching 45 ppt, almost 30% above the average 35 ppt of the open ocean (despite the fresh water reaching it from the drainage canal). I assume that the temperature of the water in the bay is affected almost entirely by air temperature and solar exposure, and has very little to do with the temperature of any open water. The high temperature made click-bait headlines, but I don't see any real connection with temperatures in the Gulf or the Atlantic beyond that all are getting warmer due to climate change. Donald Albury 14:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Change definition of Sverdrup

to CUBIC hectometers per second (not just hectometers per second). Or just omit the definition, which is correct in its own article anyway ~2026-24630-10 (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

(Proposed edit) Add major cities for Mexico and Cuba in Population section

I'd like to propose changing:

The six Mexican states that face the gulf have a total population of 19.1 million people. [...] Three provinces of northwest Cuba, including Havana, border on the gulf, have a combined population of 3,211,000.

To:

The six Mexican states that face the gulf have a total population of 19.1 million people. Major cities along the Mexican gulf coast include Tampico, Tamaulipas; Veracruz, Veracruz; Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz; Villahermosa, Tabasco; Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche; Campeche, Campeche; and Mérida, Yucatán. [...] Three provinces of northwest Cuba—Pinar del Río, Artemisa, and La Habana-border on the gulf, with a combined population of 3,211,000. The largest city on the Cuban gulf coast is Havana.

This also names the three Cuban provinces explicitly (the current text just says "including Havana" without naming the other two). Sources would be INEGI's "México en Cifras" for the Mexican cities and Britannica's Cuba entry for Havana. Happy to provide full wikitext with refs if there's support. Augustradjoe (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Why, this just adds words. Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If we're listing major American cities, we should be consistent and do similar for other countries. The population section in general definitely needs expansion, and I think what's proposed is a good start - though I'd probably omit the states for the city names (and remove them from the American examples already in the article). Turnagra (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Or remove the US ones, which seems to be what we should. Are the US ones worthy of inclusion? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe this information is relevant and must be included, but for every surrounding major center of population. Augustradjoe (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. The cited source only lists counties and not any specific city. Of those listed, Houston is 50 miles inland from Galveston, and New Orleans is 75 miles up the Mississippi River from Venice. Mobile is in Mobile Bay some ways north of the barrier islands, and Pensacola is also technically in Pensacola Bay. If we included Mobile and Pensacola, why not Tampa? Corpus Christi, Biloxi, Havana, and Cancún are absent, but I think those actually have city limits that extend to the water. @Augustradjoe, why not work on a map instead of putting in this into a prose list? @Ahecht: I hope it's okay to ping you for input (as the author of the infobox map). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

For the map, I was mainly just copying the previous image which was weirdly distorted and didn't show relative sizes properly since it was a perspective view. The cities mainly seem to be chosen for even distribution, not notability or encyclopedic value. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "Three provinces of northwest Cuba, including Havana, border on the gulf, have a combined population of 3,211,000." isn't grammatically correct. I'd suggest changing to *with* a combined population of 3,211,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26403-00 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, sort of. I modified the sentence, although somewhat differently than your suggestion. Thank you for raising the issue. - Donald Albury 12:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this talk page

Two months ago (scroll up for the section) I asked for the talk page to be semi-protected because so many people are wanting this article moved to Gulf of America. But no one payed enough attention. This talk page definitely needs to be semi-protected. Georgia guy (talk) Georgia guy (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That strategy requires a suitably inclined administrator to happen upon the right talk page section at the right time, or to see the section go by in their watchlist. On the other hand, protection requests are much more rapidly handled in a centralized fashion at WP:RFP. Einsof (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Georgia guy, we kind of hate to protect a talk page unless it's really necessary.

So, editors working regularly here: I do see you're keeping up with that kind of disruption, but I also understand it can be wearing. Do you need this talk page semi'd? Valereee (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is in my watchlist for over a year. I haven't found the odd post that needs fixed because of this to be too burdensome. So, no. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that the occasional post gets deleted rather easily. I just tag them in the summary that "Wikipedia has banned all conversion on the topic" and move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Valereee, the answer is an absolute yes. Georgia guy (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree... there are a lot more talk pages with worse things than this. It's not horrible vandalism... it's simply people who don't read the top and understand that Wikipedia has banned all talk of Gulf of America. Just delete the offending posts and all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it's banner blindness. Even I don't bother to read the banners at the top of talk pages—it's just visual noise, and given that we have a whole article on the phenomenon, we should do better than slapping a bunch of nags at the top of every talk page when we know most people are psychologically predisposed to ignore them. Einsof (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If I may, here are the banner nags that I find to be the greatest waste of space and are likely making the banner blindness worse for commenters:

• "Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page": Duplicated by a subsequent nag, "Add new text under old text", and anyway, hitting the "start new discussion" button will add the new discussion at the bottom automatically. Axe this nag.
• The three-column banner jam packed with every possible Wikipedia policy and search engine: yikes! My eyes glaze over just trying to parse it. Keep the "start topic" button and possibly one or two judiciously chosen short instructions. Axe the rest.
• "Discussions on this page have often led to BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH review the FAQ before commenting on this topic": What is the point of this if it's immediately followed by the FAQ that it's nagging everyone to read? Just present the FAQ without the preceding nag.
• "This article is written in American English": Anyone who cares enough to check the English variant will seek it out via its hidden category or hidden template in the main article. Axe.
• "Current consensus: In this discussion there was consensus that a moratorium be in place until December 5, 2026 regarding all discussion about renaming BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH": Already covered in the FAQ. Axe.

Can we please delete these nags so that there is even some remotely nonzero chance that people will glance at a useful instruction before hitting the "start new topic" button? Yeesh. Einsof (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Einsof, I'd say make the changes you think would be helpful and see if anyone objects. I've removed the AmEng banner, that certainly seems like it's not worth the space on any talk where there isn't active disagreement over the version of English being used. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, that AmEng banner was put in place to replace a BrEng banner that had recently been placed without explanation. Probably they should have just removed the BrEng tag, which had been placed by an editor who a few days later was community banned for similar silliness at other articles.

I do think bannering of talk pages tends to increase over time. At one point this page had a bunch of less-important banners collapsed, but that was undone here, apparently because there was already a collapsed banner inside that collapse, but I'm not actually sure that's a problem? Christian75, was that for a policy reason? Valereee (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I deleted a bunch of them. The FAQ about the naming at least is at the top now. Einsof (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I actually moved the CT notice to the top, as I feel like that's the most important one for people to be aware of. It doesn't take up much vertical space, the FAQs are still very visible without scrolling on a monitor. For mobile users not as much, of course. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair — let's see if this helps. Thanks for weighing in. Einsof (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

So mentioning Apple Maps and Google Maps is also now banned?

We aren't allowed to ever discuss anything Gulf of America-wise. Ok that's fine. And editor mentions that the term is used by Apple Maps and Google Maps... two entities that almost everyone in the US uses today (unless you don't have a cellphone). It's reverted for no sources (an absolute lie). I reverted back because it is sourced. I then get reverted with someone telling me we only summarize. Is mentioning the fact the two biggest map sources in the country use a term now also banned here? Are we an encyclopedia anymore? We can do better than say "some platforms." You do that with Playschool Kids Maps, or Mapasaurus. These two are the Wimbledon or Superbowl of online maps these days. Wikipedia is getter stranger and stranger with that kind of forced limitation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's already covered by "Some major online map platforms". See WP:SUMMARY TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that covers it at all. That's like saying "he won some major sports trophies" and leaving out it was an Olympic Gold, and the World Series. That is over summarizing. Those are the two most used navigation map platforms on the planet. You don't leave that out unless you are purposely trying to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you think Some major online map platforms refers to?

Why would we summarise to say that and then specify the platform? It's redundant. TarnishedPath^talk 05:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

There must be thousands of articles that say "they did some fantastic things, including winning the medal of honor and the purple heart." Or "She won many big awards including an Oscar and an Emmy." Why on earth would you think this is unusual? This is under a name section, not super summary like the lead. Why would we want this censored? I'm not the one who added it but it's incredible to think it wouldn't be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing is being censored. As I stated above it's already summarised. If people are really that interested in finding out more details, they can click the citations. TarnishedPath^talk 07:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it is since most Wikipedia articles would contain that type of info. We are obviously light-years apart on what is important and what is not and I'd hate to see you working on articles like The Academy Awards or Abraham Lincoln. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not just me who is light-years away from your view. @FlightTime removed your addition also. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Not my addition. I only reinstated anothers once. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), you have been editing long enough to understand that you need to build consensus in order to change contested content. Mocking those who disagree with you on this point, and shouting "censorship" and claiming that information is "banned" because two mapping sites are not currently mentioned by name is not consensus building. Keep the civility policy in mind and adopt a less confrontational tone, please. Cullen328 (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

As others have said we do mention it, in as much detail as it deserves. The USA is not the only place in the world. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Something seems really strange about the editing of this article compared with others. Oh Well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The strange thing is that some very silly person thought he could unilaterally rename an international body of water and then other people are acting surprised that an international encyclopedia is resistant to giving this silly bit of rhetoric much more mention than it is due in a high-importance science article. American politicization of science is not something we need to give much focus to on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess this type of post explains a lot about the way this particular article is edited on this English encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You should probably list the other articles you are mentioning given your claim here. But to follow-up on the previous point, this is the English Wikipedia. The US is not the only English prominent country in the world, but is just one of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, es.wiki does mention Google maps by name in this context. ~2026-31871-34 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh, different wikis do different things. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Is mentioning Hugh de Paduinan banned? As a convenient way to find maps, I searched for a settlement named after one of his descendants, and both Apple and Google put the newfangled name for this gulf in brackets. This article devotes plenty of attention to the fringe view that US waters in the gulf should be renamed, but says that a poll found only 29% of USians supporting this propagandistic relabelling, so the premise that "that the term is used by Apple Maps and Google Maps ... two entities that almost everyone in the US uses today" looks to be a minority view even just in the US. Any change in poll numbers in reliable sources? . . dave souza, talk 04:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dave souza It makes it sound like only that term is used, when Google maps has it as an additional in brackets, so if it's mentioned I think it should be rephrased. I don't know how Apple presents (don't have an Apple device) so could someone check before rewriting? Tippitytap (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Just seen that someone rephrased it last night to "when serving U.S. users", which is a good clarification. Tippitytap (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, that phrasing was there when I looked at it, and for ages Gulf of Mexico naming controversy has noted "Google stating that users in the U.S. see "Gulf of America", users in Mexico see "Gulf of Mexico", and users elsewhere see both names." Apple Maps currently shows me "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)", and searching in it gives the first option for Houston as Houston, Renfrewshire, originally "Hugh's town" and later the barony of Houston, with the next option the settlement in TX – search results tend to reflect the search location. . dave souza, talk 12:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Online platforms serve users all kinds of language that is commercially motivated rather than reflective of how real people talk. Unless presented with evidence otherwise, we should assume this is another case of a few managers in Cupertino and Mountain View again deciding to force some idiosyncrasy on everyone else. On general grounds, Wikipedia removes or minimizes that kind of language because we aren't here to carry water for corporations. Einsof (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)