Talk:Mosquito Coast

Requested move 6 December 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. Sorry to the nominator, but I see no support and unanimous opposition, so this is a WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Mosquito Coast → MosquitiaMosquitia – Under WP:WIAN, “a name can be considered widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states that it is the name most often used.” Karl Offen wrote that “the toponym Mosquitia also has historical usage in both languages, and the region is known by this name in Nicaragua and Honduras today.” This also makes it best suitable under WP:PRECISION, which state that “titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article.” Mosquitia covers both the historical and modern scope, and makes it a natural disambiguation, whereas Mosquito Coast is too ambiguous. It’s also WP:CONCISE, which is “to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.” Making Mosquitia “the most concise title to fully identify the subject.” So, under all five WP:CRITERIA, Mosquitia is the most suitable title. Nhtpaf (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mosquito Coast seems to be the COMMONNAME – it is used (for instance) by Britannica, which does not even mention the name Mosquitia. Further, it is not clear how the current title is any less precise or concise than the proposed title. Zacwill (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:WIAN treats sources such as Britannica as second in line to be considered that “may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name” in the absence of the “assertion” from “a neutral and reliable source [that] states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Since we do have that “assertion” from “a neutral and reliable source” then Mosquitia is automatically “considered as widely accepted”. Additionally, under WP:COMMON when “names have multiple topics” as in the case of Mosquito Coast, “disambiguation will be necessary”, because “the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognisable; and resembles titles for similar articles.” Mosquitia, then, meets all these considerations and all five WP:CRITERIA. Nhtpaf (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if we do not purge the search results of the historical context, where Mosqutia is used in the sense of Kingdom of Mosquitia, Ngram shows that Mosquito Coast is the COMMONNAME. It also commonly appears in encyclopedias and dictionaries, e.g. Brittannica, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com and Collins Dictionary. Moscquito Coast is more common in media like BBC. As seen from the media and supported by Google Maps, Mosquitia commonly refers only to the region with a rainforest in Honduras, so the arguments in the proposal are contrary to WP:CRITERIA. The proposer is a convicted nationalist and ADVOCAT of Mosquitia so the proposal cannot be taken seriously. FromCzech (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:WIAN, the secondary indicators cited (encyclopaedias, dictionaries, etc.) only apply when no neutral source asserts usage of a “widely accepted name”. Karl Offen explicitly states that Mosquitia is the historical and modern name in both English and Spanish, and remains in use today in Nicaragua and Honduras, satisfying the primary threshold and superseding the need for secondary evidence. Additionally, Mosquito Coast is ambiguous, covering multiple distinct meanings and therefore failing WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURALDIS. Mosquitia, by contrast, is precise, concise, distinguishable and recognisable, and thus better fulfils WP:CRITERIA. Finally, Wikipedia evaluates arguments—not editors. Accusations about advocacy or nationality are irrelevant to WP:TITLE and fall outside policy-based discussion per WP:NPA and WP:FOC. Nhtpaf (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no evidence that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, which is the primary policy for titling articles in Wikipedia. Not opposed to the proposed title if it is shown to be more common. OP argues that the current title requires disambiguation yet it is the clear primary topic compared to the other articles present at the disambiguation page. Super Ψ Dro 13:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has many naming conventions for specific subject domains; the one to be used here is WP:PLACENAME, because WP:CRITERIA calls for titles in each domain to have Consistency with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Under WP:PLACENAME, “When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.” And under WP:WIAN: “A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Karl Offen explicitly states that Mosquitia is the historical and modern name that “the region is known by…today”. Additionally, WP:CRITERIA calls for title to be Precise – which is when the title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. But Mosquito Coast is used for subjects related to Arts, Entertainment, Media, and Places.

  Mosquitia best satisfies WP:CRITERIA for WP:PLACENAME: its recognisable (historically and contemporarily), natural (for readability and editors), precise (geographical only), concise (one word), and consistent (follows all the guidelines for WP:PLACENAME). Nhtpaf (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• oppose Current title satisfies all the criteria. Clearly the wp:commonname is Mosquito Coast that is to say Mosquito Coast is the name most often used for this entity.—blindlynx 18:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  The current title does not satisfy all WP:criteria for WP:placename. Mosquito Coast is not WP:precise; it refers to multiple subjects, covering art, entertainment, media, and place. It also fails WP:concise, vis-à-vis Mosquitia, which is only one word. This follows that it also fails WP:consistency. Nhtpaf (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. The novel and derived works are clearly named after the place. Concise does not mean 'always go shorter'. How does it fail WP:consistency?—blindlynx 00:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Your point that “the novel and derived works are clearly named after the place” actually confirms ambiguity — if one title refers to multiple subjects, it is not WP:Precise. WP:Concise gives the example: “The official name of Rhode Island was formerly State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations… Rhode Island was the most concise title to fully identify the subject.” This shows that the preferred title is the shortest unambiguous one. Since Mosquito Coast is both longer and ambiguous, it fails this criterion as well, whereas Mosquitia is a single-term, unambiguous geographic name. The current title is also not WP:Consistent with WP:Placename and WP:Modernplacename, which state that modern English forms are preferred, “including when … the spelling of the name in English has changed over time.” The modern spelling is ‘Miskito’ (coast), demonstrating that the present title does not align comfortably with the naming convention standards.

  Mosquitia best meets all criteria simultaneously— precise, concise, and consistent — making it the title most in line with WP:Placename conventions. Nhtpaf (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  With regard to WP:Precise and WP:Concise you can't just ignore Wp:primarytopic and wp:commonname.

  Further, that's not even close to what WP:Consistent is about—blindlynx 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Very few English-speakers will search for "Mosquitia". The editor appears to have a political agenda. Carlstak (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:rmcidc decisions are ultimately grounded in policy-based naming criteria, not on assumptions about what readers may or may not search. And WP:agf requires that we avoid imputing motives to editors. The request is based on policy and sourcing, and discussion should remain focused on those standards rather than speculation about intent. Nhtpaf (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: And I do find it striking how this editor has a fixation on changing "Mosquito Coast" to "Kingdom of Mosquitia", just as the blocked sockpuppet Whoforwho (one of the sockmaster's many) said above:

  As regarding the name, the term "Mosquitia" appears to be even more popular than that of "Kingdom of Mosquitia" or "Mosquito Kingdom". The name "Mosquitia" first appeared on a 1787 map by William Faden titled: (Mosquitia or the Mosquito Shore with the eastern part of Yucatan as far as the 20th degree of north latitude); this can also be confirmed with Google Books Ngram Viewer. So in my opinion, and as the most commond practices on Wikipedia. The article could be renamed to "Mosquitia"; being the most commonly used name for this historical country, and start the description of the page/article by mentioning the name that was used officially; The Kingdom of Mosquitia.

Yes, quite striking. Carlstak (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are contrary to Wikipedia conduct standards; they violate WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:AGF, and WP:FOC. Nhtpaf (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting that a new editor makes edits Special:Contributions/Nhtpaf remarkably similar to those of a number of now-blocked sockpuppets on many of the same pages, including one Special:Contributions/Whoforwho on this very page, is not a personal attack. Carlstak (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your comments are in contradiction to WP:FOC. Nhtpaf (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

If you've had an account or accounts that have been blocked, it's a violation of policy for you to be editing WP. Per WP:BLOCKEVASION: "An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Carlstak (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Since it appears that you’re familiar with the policy, I would also imagine that you’d know what it says about taking these concerns to “a specialised venue”. At the same time, you’re not following WP:FOC. Nhtpaf (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 8 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.

Editor Nhtpaf has been blocked

The editor Nhtpaf has been blocked. I had noticed that the quality of his writing as a non-native English speaker had improved, and sure enough, as this discussion at ANI demonstrated, he was using LLMs to reply in proper English on talk pages. More than likely he'll lay low for a while and then be back in a different guise with the same sort of edits in his never-ending crusade to impose his political point of view on this article and other Nicaragua-related articles. Keep this in mind in future. Carlstak (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Flag?

Isn't there a flag with blue stripes and Union Jack in corner? Higgs In Space (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2026

Change "A detailed account of the kingdom written by a buccaneer known only as M. W. describes its organization as being fundamentally egalitarian, with the king and some officials (usually called "Captains" in that period but later being more elaborate) being primarily military leaders, but only in wartime.[citation needed]" to "A detailed account of the kingdom written by a buccaneer known only as M. W. describes its organization as being fundamentally egalitarian, with the king and some officials (called "captains" by M.W.) being primarily military leaders, but only in wartime. Churchill, Awnsham (1732). "The Mosqueto Indian and his Golden River". A Collection of voyages and travels. Vol. 6. London : Printed by assignment from Messrs. Churchill for John Walthoe . .. , Tho. Wotton . .. , Samuel Birt . .. , Daniel Browne . .. , Thomas Osborn . .. , John Shuckburgh . .. and Henry Lintot . .. page=293. Retrieved May 7, 2026 – via Internet Archive. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help) ~2026-27684-84 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Please fix the cite book error, then I will edit for you. Hamimh2 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)