Talk:Project 2025

Policy proposals versus list of people

The intro sentence says, "Project 2025 (officially the Presidential Transition Project) is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." There are two different things: (a) a collection of policy proposals; (b) a list of conservatives around which an effort will occur to get them installed in the federal gov't in a new administration. Is Project 2025 both of those, or is it more the list of people, while Mandate for Leadership is the collection of policy proposals. Novellasyes (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the first only. If it does happen (which seems fanciful), the "list of conservatives" would be fluid, shrinking and depending on how far the individuals wish to go. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't previously looked at the Project 2025 website, but FWIW they claim that Project 2025 consists of four pillars. The four pillars are (a) a policy agenda, which is the "Mandate for Leadership", (b) a personnel database, (c) training, which they call their "Presidential Administration Academy" and (d) a 180-day playbook. The introductory sentence as it currently stands only refers to one of these four pillars, namely, the part that has to do with "a collection of policy proposals". Novellasyes (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: I'm fairly certain those four pillars are all examples of policy proposals, so the existing wording is accurate. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FormalDude. I'm not seeing how a personnel database, which is one of the four pillars, is an example of a policy proposal. Novellasyes (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the problem has been fixed. The introduction now contains many of the key policy proposals. Nerd271 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Exhibits Bias

The Wikipedia article on Project 2025 exhibits bias through its selective focus and tone. It emphasizes the project's political affiliations and controversial objectives, particularly its connection to Donald Trump. The language used can appear charged, potentially leading readers to question the neutrality of the information presented. Such elements can skew the portrayal of the subject, suggesting a bias in how the information is conveyed. 199.189.240.30 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That's because that's what reliable sources focus on. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No they don’t. The wiki article is flush with opinion that misleads the audience from the facts listed in the documentation at project 2025 itself. Which is the primary source of information.

for example, the overhauls recommended for the department of defense as portrayed in the article are grossly misrepresented from the actual text and require revision.

this wiki is essentially lying to people. 2600:1008:B090:385F:5947:598C:9C0F:80F5 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The entire article reads as a hit piece highlighting the alleged extremist opinions of the founders of Project 2025.

Reading it would make you forget that the party behind it is a major party and whose candidate has serious chances to win.

When a major political party has views and it is a major contender it is untrue to blatantly label them extremist. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

please be more specific with examples soibangla (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

By examples, we mean, for example, which paragraphs (put a quote here) misrepresent the overhauls. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Also adding to this, it's very generous to use the term "maximalist" when it should be "radical" regarding the comment on unitary theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.12.96.202 (talk • contribs)

Let’s be careful with words

This article is very important, as Donald Trump is a very likely winner in the upcoming election, and this document will be largely influential in his policy. The words we use in describing these policies matter, and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy (unless we are citing such reactions). Let's not devolve into chaos and partisan bickering and take a look at specifics to make this page shine by its objectivity, as it is of existential importance for the future of this country that sources like Wikipedia maintain the trust of the public. This is the only way the policies will be coherently discussed and, if needed, amended and pushed back against. I plea with everyone taking care of this page to leave your personal opinions at the door, and to attempt to consider the policies in a neutral way, as they are proposed.

I thank you for reading that preamble. My specific suggestion is we change the wording used in the sentence "gutting environmental and climate change regulations in favor of fossil fuel production". Words are important, and we all know that while "gutting" is an accurate term, it is also a word that is clearly and unequivocally negative. While I understand the sentiment and I can see the downsides of attacking environmental regulations, I also can see that environmental policy is a political issue and as such alternative views must be portrayed objectively and neutrally in a purely informational document like a Wikipedia article. As such, I recommend the use of

"This policy entails the substantial rollback of environmental and climate change regulations to prioritize fossil fuel production."

In this revision, I replaced "gutting" with "rollback," which conveys the idea of reversing or reducing regulations without the negative connotation associated with "gutting."

I urge everyone else currently working on this page to take a step of good faith and attack other biased language in the article; to be precise, fair, and transparent.

Project 2025 is a very controversial issue that is already being discussed at length in the public square. If you are part of that discussion in your personal life and social media, I applaud your courage and activism. However, for that discussion to be fruitful, it is of vital importance to keep the discussion in the discussion forums and to keep Wikipedia neutral and apolitical. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:60F3:6320:CFD4:367D (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"and they must be the words used by the people proposing the policy, and not the words of people reacting to the policy" Why would we quote a primary source, instead of something reliable? Wikipedia is based on third-party sources, not the words of propagandists. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree that Wikipedia editors should strive to be neutral, this does not mean regurgitating what the people behind Project 2025 are saying. They are promoting this program, remember? Nerd271 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand, and agree. However you are not attacking the point I made. The question you are attempting to answer is "What is Project 2025 proposing?" The answer to this question should be provided using neutral language to address that question, not biased language to impose your reaction or the reaction you favor on the reader (That would actually be propaganda). The two answers provided to my comment are proof of why the comment is important. I am not advocating for the use of propagandistic language here, just the use of neutral language.

The word I pointed to, "gutting" is an example of non-neutral language used specifically to provoke a visceral reaction on the reader that this is a bad policy choice (This point is debatable, as most policy choices are). By using it you are unequivocally tarnishing the article with bias.

The term "substantial rollback" on the other hand maintains the intent of the policy while leaving the value judgement to the reader, which is why we should strive for here.

There are many examples like this sprinkled throughout the article, and it is vital to weed them out, because they do not belong there. I encourage anyone reading this and my previous reply to act in accordance with Wikipedia's mission to educate and explain rather than personal bias or opinions.

It's pretty much common sense that I am referring to specific policy descriptions (the "what is") and not policy objectives or inspirations of the individual authors of Project 2025 (the "why we need this"/ "what ought to be"). I lay out my reasoning and provide a specific example on my original comment, so attempting to say that I proposed this page to be regurgitating propaganda is disingenuous and a very weak straw man. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:FC85:6ADC:DB73:815C (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The word "gutting" has been replaced by "sharply reducing" at the time of writing. Do you have any specific suggestions for edits or just vague complaints? Nerd271 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to be salty about it. I had not seen the edit was made, but I'm glad my critique may have been accurate in this case. This page is to talk about the article, and if you can't manage a little pushback, maybe it's time to get a new hobby. My sincere greetings to you, if/when I get time I'll be sure to bring more suggestions. In the meantime I believe my comment does have value and points to a specific issue and is not a vague complaint. 2600:8804:2106:ED00:934:B113:F988:588A (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you couldn't be bothered to check the page's history, then may I suggest you refrain from repeating outdated complains. (Somebody else made that change.) If you couldn't be specific, then perhaps it's time to get a new hobby. Nerd271 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

contains "gut":

• The Left Is Right To Fear Our Plan To Gut the Federal Bureaucracy - Heritage[1]
• Heritage Foundation Makes Plans to Staff Next G.O.P. Administration - NYT[2]
• ‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican president - Guardian[3]
• Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision - AP[4]
• Trump Allies Plan to Gut Climate Research if He Is Reelected - Scientific American[5]
• Conservatives have already written a climate plan for Trump’s second term - Politico[6]
• Trump’s radical second-term agenda would wield executive power in unprecedented ways - CNN[7]
• Inside the Republican Plot to Dismantle US Environmental Policy - Mother Jones[8]

soibangla (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if the Heritage Foundation themselves use that word, I suppose the IP's complaint is moot. But to make sure, I checked with the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. They were right to use that verb. Still, I think replacing it with "sharply reducing" (or "reducing") is fine. Let's leave it in place. Nerd271 (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Very sad 2603:900B:A06:EEB5:1023:72A5:F1D3:A017 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Conservative competitors?

I assume that if you are a national conservative organization and you want to be quite relevant, and you view yourself to some extent as competing with Heritage for donor dollars and media attention, you might have a similar project. Here's an article in today's (May 15) Washington Post about a different organization that covers some of the same ground as Project 2025. "The Courage Under Fire Legal Defense Fund, which has not been previously reported, is a project of a nonprofit known as Personnel Policy Operations, or PPO. The group is vetting and recommending staff for a potential second Trump administration, drawing on the experience of former administration aides, people familiar with the effort said." With that said, would it be valuable to include a new section in this article about efforts like that? If Trump is elected, who really knows which group(s) he would turn to for ideas on policies to pursue and people to hire? If there is more than one contender, and Trump himself leans into one of those instead of Project 2025, it would be good for WP readers to know something about them, as well. Novellasyes (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Novellasyes: I suppose one could add a brief mention. But anything more than that would be off-topic. Nerd271 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

AI interpretations of Project 2025

Instagram's Meta AI gives "an outright endorsement of the Project's 180-day playbook, saying it will 'bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left's devastating policies.' Meta AI links to a Bing search for 'Project 2025 latest updates' as its source for this information."

The Meta AI website (meta.ai) "when asked 'What's the latest on Project 2025?,' cited Wikipedia instead of the Heritage Foundation website, which enabled it to give a more factual response ..."

https://globalextremism.org/post/metas-ai-companion-returns-inaccurate-information-about-project-2025/ soibangla (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if even Google and other search engines have not been able to replace libraries and librarians, despite having been around for a couple decades, then I doubt AI would supplant humans reading and thinking for themselves anytime soon. But I am glad to learn that we have done an alright job in making this article factually accurate. This is important because Wikipedia does have a large footprint in the public consciousness. Nerd271 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible replacement for that blurred out image

In case that photograph is removed, I found an artistic representation of that copyrighted artwork here. Nerd271 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"...freedom is defined by God, not man."

@Esowteric: I know that this is quoted in a number of secondary sources, such as Politico. However, I have not been able to find this in the primary sources, including the Mandate for Leadership as well as the leaflet 5 Reasons Leftists HATE Project 2025. The Politico article is dated February 2024. My copy of the Mandate is from July 2023, which is no different from the current version available for download from the official website of Project 2024. (Check the properties of your PDFs.) Nerd271 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise that your edit summary of Can't find that quote. referred to your own research in not being able to locate it in the primary source; I thought you were referring to not being able to find it in the independent, reliable, secondary sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't locate the origin of the quote (nor can ChatGPT, which points the querent to broader Christian Nationalist rhetoric). It seems to have gone viral due to both the Politico article and Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it in the Mandate and the link to it in the Politico story fails. I contacted the authors weeks ago, and subsequently their editor; no response, no correction. It should be removed. soibangla (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Can ChatGPT read PDF files? Anyway, I am glad I spotted that error. It is consistent with everything else publicly known about Project 2025. But it is not a quote from the Mandate and so should be clarified as such. Nerd271 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Esowteric and Soibangla: Removing the quote works, too. Nerd271 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Content in lede

We currently have this content in the lede. It says "Basic research would only be funded if it suits conservative principles." The sources are an opinion editorial and what appears to be the group's own publication, that is appearing as a dead link. Neither an opinion editorial or the group's own publication is a sufficient source for this statement, especially in the lede. See WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The group appears to have published a 920 page document of ideas. It is WP:UNDUE to single any of these 920 pages worth of self-published ideas out in the lede absent any WP:INDEPENDENT sources establishing their particular noteworthiness. Marquardtika (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Since no one disputed my policy explanations above, I'm going to remove the problematic content. Marquardtika (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I do. And I have already stated my view. What this organization claims to want to do is perfectly reasonable to include. The NYT article merely reflects that. Nerd271 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYT "article" is an opinion editorial. It's not a reliable source. There is no policy-based reason this content should be in the article, let alone the lede. Marquardtika (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that those are low quality sources that don't justify including this content in the lede. Is there a reliable secondary source that covers this that we can use instead? ––FormalDude (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We have to wait for (more) secondary sources to tell us what Project 2025 would like to do when their PDF is free to download? This is relevant and verifiable information. Even the page number is given. And while we are at it, it is not a "lede" but rather an introduction. The lede of a news article entices the reader to read more; the introduction of an encyclopedic article merely summarizes the contents. Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to wait, you can go and find them now. If they don't exist, then picking one part out of a 920 page document to present in the lede would be lending an undue amount of weight to it. We cannot and will not simply regurgitate everything Project 2025 says about itself, that's not how Wikipedia works. You say it's relevant, but until it's covered by reliable secondary sources, that's just your opinion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. And by the way, I do know what a WP:LEDE is. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the information is relevant and verifiable, it deserves to be included. And by the way, I do know what a "lede" is. Nerd271 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"Relevant" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we need coverage in reliable secondary sources. They published a whopping 920 page document. We can't simply put something in our article, especially the lede, because they published it themselves. Why not just republish their entire 920 page document in our article? Your opinion of what is "relevant" is not the standard here. What reliable sources say about Project 2025 is the standard. Marquardtika (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Conveniently, the full PDF is linked so that readers can verify for themselves. Nerd271 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025 is subversive

I thought it was illegal to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government, so how can a document which outlines such a conspiracy be allowed to continue on Wikipedia? What can concerned citizens do about this? SympatheticCitizen (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@SympatheticCitizen: What Esowteric has just said, plus the fact that it is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not to tell them what to think. Editorial decisions made concerning whether or not to include something takes notability into account, not unpleasantness. Nerd271 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@SympatheticCitizen You cannot overthrow a government by legally electing representatives and firing those within the purview.

And neither is it considered overthrowing a government by publishing what you believe should be the governments focus. 2605:8D80:6C4:49A8:9953:3D48:7B17:5DA7 (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead too long

Seven full paragraphs is way too long for a lead and it needs to be cut down. We don't need to go into so much detail with specific policy proposals in the lead, that's what the body is for. The lead should be slimmed down just to express the overall plan, who is for it and how people are are generally reacting to it. It should be 5 paragraphs max, but 3 or 4 would likely be enough. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I might be inclined to trim the lead at a later time, but I would oppose it right now soibangla (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, @User:Tpbradbury, has already done a good job of trimming the lead. While it's still longer than I would like, I think that's more of a personal preference rather than an actual issue like the previous length was. As long as the lead stays at its current length, I consider this issue to be resolved. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Tpbradbury did a fine job shortening the introduction. But we should remember that since this is a detailed plan for political reform, the introduction cannot possibly be short and still capture the key proposals. Nerd271 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic language and unsourced assertions

Specifically "However, he did not fulfill this promise. But despite former President Trump's connection to adult-film star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, Roberts is unencumbered." in the 'Outlawing Pornography' section. Issues: How did Trump fail to uphold his anti-internet pornography pledge, what relevance is Trump and Stormy Daniel's affair have on the above, and how is Kevin Roberts unencumbered. Not requesting removal, but clarification. As is, it reads of an opinion piece. BlindWatcher9 (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The source is at the end of the paragraph. Trump did not fulfill his promise because there was no federal study on the "public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture." Nor was there a ban. Given Trump's associations with a former pornographer and a former Playboy model, people and journalists were naturally curious why Roberts, a Trump supporter, would still support him and hope that he will ban pornography. And that was Roberts' response. Nerd271 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are we relying on unverified anonymous sources?

No where in the entire PDF is the insurrection act ever mentioned.

the only mention we have of that is the word of an unverified anonymous source the Washington post said they have. We are putting in there as fact and adding citations that do not match.

use the primary source of what they plan to do don’t make it up. I’ve continually made the edit to clarify and it keeps being removed. Mmueller918 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WaPo reported "...according to a person involved in those conversations and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post."

we cannot rely exclusively on what a controversial organization tells us, or does not tell us. that's why we have journalists, and we use them as our sources here. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

we also can’t just take an anonymous source as fact, we have to clarify Mmueller918 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

you are flatly wrong on policy. I recommend you self-revert your removal soibangla (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not. The current version speaks as if it’s fact when all we have is an unverified source. This is a wild accusation that should not be listed as fact.

If you feel it should be mentioned the caveat that it’s unverified should be mention. I will not be taking your suggestion. Mmueller918 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

you ignore that WaPo is not relying solely on an unidentified source. the fact an editor dislikes unidentified sources does not negate the reality that WaPo is a reliable source.

and internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post ... The proposal was identified in internal discussions as an immediate priority, the communications showed[9]

soibangla (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

they are relying on the unidentified source who supposedly provided them internal documents. we should not be reporting it as fact, when we don't know.

say that this is from an anonymous source or don’t use it Mmueller918 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post is a reliable source. Find it listed at WP:RSPSS. The opinions of the contributors of Project 2025 on related matters, even if not found directly in the PDF, is relevant and might be included. Nerd271 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It reeks of bias by writing it as fact Mmueller918 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is an opinion of a Project 2025 contributor. Nerd271 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

According to an anonymous source Mmueller918 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Conservative" vs. "right-wing"

The policy proposals can be more accurately described as "conservative" than "right-wing". The Heritage Foundation is described as "conservative", and "Conservatism in the United States" is the right concept to link to, not "right-wing politics". DenverCoder19 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say "conservative" is more accurate than "right wing"? It's my understanding that both are correct but that "right wing" is more general as well as being more neutral TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Conservative is traditionally more neutral, I would say, but times change, as does politics alongside it, and "Conservative" has become more of a euphemism used by the right. Speaking only for myself, I would say that Project 2025 is more populist and radical than traditional conservativism, and that "right-wing" would be a more accurate term. But, of course, this is Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems more like neo-Nazi to me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A mistake or just my inability to comprehend

There's a sentence in the second paragraph that goes: "The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.". Now English isn't my first language, but a quick Google search says that protectionism is the things you do to limit other countries stuff's sales to protect your country stuff's sales (such as taxation). But from the sentence above it's more like "the writers disagree with protectionism so they should've raised the tax, but they want to have tax cuts instead" - quite paradoxical. Shouldn't it be something like: "The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, since its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism.". Is what I'm understanding and saying correct? Is this a good place to ask these type of questions? I'm quite new here. Andykhang404 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In the PDF detailing Project 2025, which you can download from their website, you will find two different takes on free trade, with one person advocating for tariffs and the other promoting more free trade with other (free) countries. (No one, not even the Democrats, supports more free trade with China.) This article section titled "Economy" has a summary of their positions. The other taxes they talk about, and want to cut are things like income and corporate taxes, not tariffs. Nerd271 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2024

Project 2025 → Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project – change name to Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

why? soibangla (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. "Project 2025/Presidential Transition Project" is not the name of the collection of policy proposals. "Project 2025" is also known as the "Presidential Transition Project", but that is a reason to make a redirect, not to put both names into the article title. - Brian Kendig (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The current name is the common name. Killuminator (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as per Brian Kendig and Killuminator above. See Wikipedia:CRITERIA and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Support Comment. new name more descriptive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.3.91 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RM#nom, nomination already implies support – there should be no separate bulleted support made by the nominator. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, already at WP:COMMONNAME. Skyerise (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The status quo works just fine. Nerd271 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)