Select Page

Talk:Gulf of Mexico

InfoBox and nomenclature

PLEASE READ FAQS
Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am new to wikipedia, But I do think the infobox feature should have some kind of section stating the gulf's other names like...

Other Names

Gulf of America, Etc., Etc. Itssaus (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive discussion about this above. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh sorry yeah im new and i still dont really know how it works Itssaus (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about the “Gulf of the Americas”? It does touch a couple of different countries in North America. Septagram (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gulf of America again

WITHDRAWN
No support Feeglgeef (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we extend the moratorium for 3 months? Feeglgeef (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To capture the essence of this timeframe perhaps it should just be noted the topic of the name change ' as was adopted through a Trump Executive order (dated whenever), however due to considerable opposition to Trump and his policies from various quarters (and some media) found the namechange by executive order contentious with some claiming not to recognize the name change. The name change further caused rifts in the media community[1] with some media houses not immediately recognizing the changes such as the Associated Press,[2] leading to what was perceived to be their removal from the White House press corps[3] and even a resulting lawsuit over the perceived reaction.'[4][5][6]
To my mind: This whole thing is becoming a anti trump/ pro trump lightning rod on Wikipedia and really is a lot of WP:UNDUE as future presidents might even change the name back which might lead to more round-about arguing.. CaribDigita (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While anecdotally, I think I see a recent uptick in IPs changing "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" in various articles, an extended moratorium on discussion here won't help with that. I would prefer to wait to see whether disruption over the topic becomes a problem again on this page before formally extending the moratorium. Donald Albury 15:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extending the moratorium to suppress discussion when circumstances have changed would be misguided. States are passing legislation recognizing the GoA name and banning use of the GoM name in schools. As wrongheaded as that might be by those states, it would be just as wrong not to entertain fresh discussion of recognizing the increasingly common name in the lede, as opposed to an about dozen paragraphs deep into the article. Talmage (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that at this point, the previous moratorium having expired, we might have to go through the motions of at least one well-attended discussion before extending it. Who knows, maybe general coverage has indeed swung round sufficiently to warrant more prominent mention, although I doubt it (the rest of the world seems in no mood to truckle to any of Trump's ugly fancies that aren't backed up by the economic big stick).--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the governor of each Gulf Coast state has been known to support Trump, it (sadly) would be expected for them to embrace the "Gulf of America". Other than that, nothing much else has changed since the beginning of the moratorium Gulf-wise. That being said, if disruption over the Gulf of Mexico's name grows, I would be in support of another three-month moratorium. GN22 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure I understand your point. Is it a normative position that because you disagree with the Trump administration’s name change and its embrace by gulf coast state governments (as well as the U.S. federal government) that there shouldn’t be discussion about whether the new name is in sufficient use to be included in the lede? Or is it that compelled use of the new name in the schools somehow can’t be indicative of widespread use?
The problem I have is that the moratorium seems to be a referendum on Trump’s name change, not a discussion of whether the change—-right or wrong—-is in common enough use to justify a more prominent placement in the article, and certainly not a discussion about whether further discussion should be permitted. The moratorium decision shouldn’t depend on the reason behind or wisdom of the new name, nor even about whether it should be recognized here in the lede, but whether there could be a sufficient change in circumstances to even permit discussion of putting it in the lede. Talmage (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just about only thing that's substantially changed is Gulf Coast state governments' embrace of the name. Nothing else has changed much. New state textbooks don't come out until a few years from now. And, so far, it's only the governments of Florida and Louisiana that have fully made the switch. I'm saying that this alone shouldn't require a new moratorium because it was an expected result and the Gulf Coast state governments are all Republican-controlled. However, if disruption on this talk page and other GoM-related talk pages becomes too much, I would be in support of another moratorium. GN22 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly oppose any extension as the length selected was determined based on a lengthy discussion, and extending it for the sake of extending it would be a slap in the face to all of those who did not support an extended and/or indefinite moratorium . That said, if significant disruptions occur, and only at that point, the topic of a new moratorium can be discussed. However this would not be needed if there are no disruptions or minor disruptions. Frank Anchor 19:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this, and oppose an extension. A new moratorium can be discussed and/or implemented as needed. Intilyc (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'd like to explain my reasoning as to why "Gulf of America" should stay where it is in the article.
1. There are around 200 different countries in the world. The government agencies of all but one of them use "Gulf of Mexico".
2. Outside of the U.S. government, a few state governments, and Trump supporters, "Gulf of America" isn't a commonly-used term. According to polling, the majority of Americans do not support renaming the Gulf of Mexico.
3. This naming dispute is more of a recent dispute. Trump's term in office lasts only four years, and there's no guarantee he will be succeeded by another president who will want to keep the "Gulf of America" name (although WP:CRYSTALBALL). We list alternative names in the lead for places with more long-running naming disputes. For example, the Persian Gulf naming dispute has been ongoing for over half a century. GN22 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubleplusoppose a new moratorium. Talmage (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps displays "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" in all countries except Mexico/USA,[7] GNIS shows Gulf of America, we have a page called Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute with over 73,000 views in the past 30 days compared to 271,000 for this article[8], the Associated Press has been banned from the White House due to not calling it the Gulf of America, Encyclopedia Britannica calls it "Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America",[9] kids in Florida will be reading "Gulf of America" in textbooks,[10] etc etc.
Banning "Gulf of America" from the lede is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT at this point. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on "Gulf of America"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Snow A. 20 first choice A's to 3 other votes. (non-admin closure) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above indicates there is enough desire to hold a discussion. Some options are:

  • A: Status quo, section on names
  • B: Mention in lead
  • C: Mention in lead sentence
  • D: Reduced weight or no mention

Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion (RFC on "Gulf of America")

Why no E for rename the article? (I only mention this because I think E is as bad an idea as D, but both bad ideas deserve mention.) But personally, I'd go with B or C, so let's say B½. Talmage (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that it's ironic that many of the foreign language Wikipedia articles on the subject have the translated name of "Gulf of America" in the lede or at least more prominently placed than in this English version article. Yet we're told how many countries--in which English isn't the language used--recognize the translated "Gulf of Mexico" name. So I'm confused, do we only count non-English languages when they support our favored position? Talmage (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which Wikipedias you consulted (ignoring its irrelevance), but I couldn't find "many", not even one. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Romanian, Polish, Russian, Belarusian. I'm sure there are more, I only looked at a handful of languages whose alphabets I could read. Talmage (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have an option that will not be seriously considered. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C, followed by B. Google Maps displays "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" in all countries except Mexico/USA,[11] GNIS shows Gulf of America, we have a page called Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute with over 73,000 views in the past 30 days compared to 271,000 for this article[12], the Associated Press has been banned from the White House due to not calling it the Gulf of America, Encyclopedia Britannica calls it "Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America",[13] kids in Florida will be reading "Gulf of America" in textbooks,[14] etc etc.

    For many of our readers, they will see the term "Gulf of America" or use it in their daily lives. Any time one of our readers looks up the term "Gulf of America", they have no way of immediately knowing that this article is about that body of water. It's not an endorsement of the definitive name of the topic; we are just mentioning a very common alternative name. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There are no adult Americans calling this body of water "Gulf of America" who don't know that this name is new and disputed. No one uses it in their daily lives. CAVincent (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CAVincent: The target audience for our article is for someone that doesn't already know what the Gulf of Mexico is, not adult Americans that know about this body of water. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A – the usage is not even remotely common or even deserving to be recognized as an alternate name. It's like giving MSNBC the alternate name MSDNC in its first sentence. No one calls it the Gulf of America except a couple of nuts in the White House. Besides, the new name is only for the first few miles offshore, which does not refer to the entire gulf. We shouldn't be pushing the misconception that the US has any kind of control over international waters or the Mexican EEZ. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go on Google Maps in the USA, the body of water is exclusively labelled the Gulf of America.
    Over the past 30 days, the term "Gulf of America" is consistently Googled at about a ratio of 30:70 with the term "Gulf of Mexico" on a worldwide basis. [15] It's not the most common name, but this pattern is true for several countries. In Vietnam it's 39% "Gulf of America", compared to only 36% for the United States. In Germany it's 34% "Gulf of America", in Austria it's 32% "Gulf of America", in the United Kingdom is 32% "Gulf of America", India is also 32% "Gulf of America", even in Mexico it's 31% "Gulf of America". It's consistently above 30% for "Gulf of America" in all countries except for Ireland, the Philippines, and Bulgaria.
    It's objectively false that people aren't using it. Editors are parroting this idea that it "hasn't caught on" and "coverage has plummeted" with zero sources or evidence to support their preconceived views. The only source I see are Google ngrams that end in 2022 before the name was even invented. Same with the idea that the name isn't used outside of the USA. The only argument not based on falsifying statistics are that we shouldn't be redistributing Trump propaganda, which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:CENSORED in one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course people are searching "Gulf of America" – the term is shorthand for the name change and the name dispute (and probably 80% of the people searching "Gulf of Mexico" are only looking for the name change/dispute). They aren't looking for information about the body of water itself. Google Trends is well-known for often hallucinating searches that don't exist (also remember that an attendee of Trump's inauguration owns it) so such high rates of searching is probably not the case. Same with Google Maps: a mouthpiece of the Trump administration. You have refuted none of my points. Give any RS that calls the gulf by the official-in-one-country, heavily disputed name for a small part of it, rather than using the COMMONNAME. I searched myself – and found nothing but a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece ridiculing the name change, which made me laugh – but means nothing in terms of this RFC. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Trends is just a statistical measurement of Google search trends over time, it's not an AI language model, so I don't know why it would hallucinate. If this is "well-known", can you actually cite something explaining why their results are hallucinations? I also don't understand why they would deliberately and fraudulently imply searches of "Gulf of America" are higher than they actually are. There's been no indication that Google Trends is unreliable.
    Calling Google Maps a "mouthpiece of the Trump administration" is meaningless unless you assume that agreeing with Trump is inherently wrong. Even if Google has wholeheartedly endorsed Donald Trump, Google Maps is the main way Americans consume cartographic information. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I edited the description of Option A in this RfC to read "section on names" rather than the original "section on naming disputes". The relevant section title is simply "Name" and for the most part describes various names without going into disputes. I also listed this RfC at Talk:Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute. Einsof (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A As I see no good reason to change it. Also, are most users American? If not, there is no reason to assume Gulf of America is what they will see in their daily lives. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A We have a whole separate page on the controversy. People searching "Gulf of America" are already redirected to the name section, which links to that page. The name section features the alternative name in bold, so readers scrolling through can see it and read the explanation. On a global perspective, "Gulf of America" is still not a common enough name to be more prominently mentioned (also maybe still too recent). This is the English Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia. There are around 200 different countries in the world and the government agencies of all but one of them use "Gulf of Mexico". Outside of the U.S. government, a few state governments, and Trump supporters, "Gulf of America" isn't a commonly-used term. According to polling, the majority of Americans do not support using the new name. GN22 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Frankly coverage of this has plummeted since nobody outside of the United States has any interest in humoring it. The status quo is fine.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D followed by Option A A presidential whim doesn't rename a body of water. The idea that anyone is actually calling this the "Gulf of America" without knowing that they are attempting a disputed renaming is nonsensical. Even in the US, only Trumpist partisans are going to use the term, and they all know that it isn't the name that they used a year ago. CAVincent (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment / Clarification The current naming dispute absolutely should be mentioned in the "Name" section. I don't want to try to erase the dispute. I think that the way the article currently treats the name is fine. CAVincent (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally option A? Feeglgeef (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I didn't want to change my original comment so that the discussion record isn't altered, but Option A seems best. CAVincent (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, followed by B - This renaming only concerns one country, and AFAIK isn't even in common use here in the US. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A "Gulf of America" is still not the common name or even used that frequently outside of the naming dispute, no reason to differ from the current status quo. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 16:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A I don't feel that there has been anywhere close to enough change in real world usage to justify changing the way this is currently treated in the article. Donald Albury 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per Chicdat, GN22, CAVincent, and others. This term has not achieved any real currency, except among some politicians and the satellites orbiting them. It had a brief life as a media curiosity before the news cycle grew tired with it, and now survives mostly as a cartographic irregularity. Things may change in the future, but for now, real people do not use this term. Einsof (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A – I support the status quo. The name section already has the alternative name in bold and even links to the article "Gulf of Mexico–America naming dispute" for readers who want to learn more. Mentioning the alternative name in lead would give it undue weight. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, the ngrams result is frankly a bit funny, it gives Gulf of Mexico a ~100,000 times lead for 2021, and no usage for 2022. C would be WP:RECENTISM, B would be undue, sources discussing terminology are a drop in the ocean and we only have a small paragraph on this in the article. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, D, B, C, in order of most to least acceptable. The made-up-out-of-nowhere phrase "Gulf of America", used by pretty much no one on Earth but members of a single political party in a single country, and only for about 6 months, barely qualifies as encyclopedic information at all. If we need to address this term in a section in this article, then it could be mentioned briefly in the lead section, but it certainly should not be in the first sentence, given weight as if it's accepted as a legitimate and essentially equal term. It's propaganda, and this is not PropagandaRedistributionAndReinforcementPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Basically per SMcCandlish. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A over C. However, this event has brought people using the much shorter "the Gulf" into the public voice in a way that I never expected to see to where the non-partisan "the Gulf" is now used more than "Gulf of America" in the US, so if we're going to add anything to the lede, it should be that. Departure– (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this appears to be heading towards closure (SNOW for Option A status quo), I'd like to ask anyone closing this within the coming days their thoughts on a moratorium, I propose another 6 months on top of the however-long one we just got out of; now that the dust has settled it's clear that consensus has shifted even further away from including the alternate name and therefore consensus is unlikely to develop in the following 6 months on another RfC. This one has, thankfully, been much less disruptive and unlike last time I don't see any clear canvassing, so a moratorium should be on a lack of consensus instead of disruption. Departure– (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I strongly oppose an extended moratorium on this topic, and there was consensus less than two days ago to not extend it. Frank Anchor 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what happens during the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet searches mean people are looking it up, not using it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option A LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 20:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A I really doubt think this will last much beyond the Trump presidency, so we should be cautious about renaming. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan To be fair, 7-11 more years is a fairly long time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider WP:NPOV and the Gulf of Mexico-America dispute. Also, Gulf of America might be relatively uncommon, but it is still used enough that we should mention it, and it is also official for the US government. Furthermore, not including it in the lead is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mast303 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, WP:NCGN says: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages – i.e., (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast303 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably reasonable to say that at least 10% of sources call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. So... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast303 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposed compromise: Clearly, a majority of people prefer Option A. H Maybe we should not mention Gulf of America directly in the lead, but we should make it more prominent within the names section and add a "see below for other names" to the lead (for example, Sea of Japan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast303 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moratorium discussion

Should there be a moratorium on further discussion of the name of the body of water for a period of time or until there is reporting in reliable secondary sources that the International Hydrographic Organization has changed the name of the body of water?

  • A: Yes, for three months
  • B: Yes, for six months
  • C: Yes, for twelve months
  • D: No

TarnishedPathtalk 08:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 above RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 09:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or C the argument to increase prominence is weaker now than it was in February when we last discussed moratoria. There's no need to reopen the flood gates to repetitive requests once the current RfC closes. Simonm223 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it snow closed. Lol enough said. Simonm223 (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, otherwise C or A. I was of the opinion that we needed a fresh RfC on the topic proper before discussing a moratorium. Now that's been had, and we will all be grateful to avoid clueless retreads every 5 days from now on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C, then B. There's no reason to take up needless discussion time with a doomed perennial proposal. A year is a good amount of time for a common name to emerge, and if the proposal is still doomed in a year then we can just hold another discussion. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or as long as possible, for both requested moves and to discussions about adding it into the lead unless there is a change in what reliable sources report. I.e, that they verify official agreement by the the International Hydrographic Organization on the change of name for the body of water. This has been discussed to death on this article's talk and editors pushing for change need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B (first choice) or A (second choice). A year is too long. My opposition to a moratorium in the withdrawn thread was based extending the previous moratorium for the sake of extending it and with no further discussion. Now the RFC has occurred, there is clear consensus to maintain the status quo. Six months (including the peak of a hurricane season) will give ample time for "Gulf of America" to potentially emerge as the WP:COMMONNAME. I will also add that official recognition by the International Hydrographic Organization or any other organization should not drive the inclusion of this name in the lead, it should be based on what the subject gulf is commonly called. Frank Anchor 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No moratorium because there hasn’t been further discussion beyond an RfC to warrant a moratorium. In fact calls for a new moratorium occurred after the prior one expired with no further discussion on the subject of the proposed moratorium. Instead there should be a moratorium on further moratoria in the absence of disruption. This unprompted request for a further moratorium is telling. Talmage (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further discussion is occurring now. TarnishedPathtalk 12:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence the need for a moratorium on needless moratoria. I'm glad we agree. Talmage (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that there was almost immediately an RfC about the lede as soon as the moratorium was lifted seems to suggest that the moratorium was a successful tool for preventing page disruption and should likely be continued. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC was opened by the same person who started the discussion by asking to extend the moratorium. So moratorium expires, Feeglgeef asks to extend it, people say there's no need to extend, then he opens an RfC, then after the RfC, this moratorium discussion ensues. So, sure, "[t]he fact that there was almost immediately an RfC about the lede as soon as the moratorium was lifted" is technically true, but only because the RfC was opened by someone pushing for a moratorium. So basically (1) start discussion, (2) ban further discussion because of (1). Talmage (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter who started the discussion though. Even if someone opposed of moving had created the RFC, and even if nobody had asked for a moratorium before that, the discussion would still have been SNOW closed and this discussion still would have happened. This point is moot. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps instead there should be a moratorium on moratoria on moratoria in the absence of discussion? Feeglgeef (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that a year is likely too long but the RfC this time around has been much less disruptive and consensus has made itself exceptionally clear, so I'm in favor of B-C - a moratorium of anywhere from 6-12 months. Departure– (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. C would probably be too long and it's probably a good compromise as this has been wasting a lot of resources. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, don't connect it to the IHO. Feeglgeef (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • D No There has not been enough recent disruption to justify a moratorium. It is standard practice to wait a while after an RFC has been closed to raise the issue again, and we need to institute a formal moratorium only if there are multiple attempts to reopen the topic too soon after the last closure. That hasn't happened yet. Donald Albury 14:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or C. It's a complete waste of everyone's time having these constant discussions when there is almost certainly never going to be consensus to change from the status quo any time soon (indeed, possibly the opposite). Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me any discussion in the last month that was initiated by someone seeking to change the status quo. All recent discussion has ironically been started by people claiming we need to ban discussion. Talmage (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Intent of RFC initiator is completely irrelevant, the RFC is supposed to be worded neutrally. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then where is the recent discussion that warrants a moratorium? Or is this a preemptive moratorium? Talmage (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion that was SNOW closed. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B - I think a one-year moratorium is too long, but I also think public usage of Gulf of America is not going to change significantly in three months. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C and hopefully this will die down. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B While IMO highly unlikely, hurricane season is just about around the corner and "Gulf of America" may see an important uptick in usage. The IHO tends to be slow-moving and would not solely change the body of water's name to "Gulf of America", as most governments continue to use the gulf's traditional name. A six-month moratorium seems to be the most supported so far, and we all need a break from constant discussion on the "Gulf of America". GN22 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A>B>D>C - 6 months seems a little too long, but some kind of moratorium seems appropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, and don't connect it to the IHO or any other official body. Common names don't change very quickly, and we should try to let the existing consensus settle in a bit rather than dealing with constant pestering. The recent attention seems like it is just the news cycle playing out, and Wikipedia is not a breaking news site. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B or C – I believe that discussions regarding the name should occur no more than once a year, specifically after the Atlantic hurricane season, when we can observe trends in media coverage. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, this page is protected for a month, so "A" is not viable since it will be valid for two months. The hurricane season will come and the arguments that US media is using the recent name to describe the gulf as "America" as a whole despite it only applies to 42% of it will increase the chances of new redundant discussions already rejected by WP:RECENTISM. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. The hurricane season will generate a ton of coverage we can look through and determine the name. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would add that hurricane season ends in November, which is probably going to be 6 months from the end of this discussion (assuming it ends in May). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, C, B, A in most to least preferable order. Basically, we should not reconsider this unless either a) IHO changes the name and other sources in the majority start to along with it, or b) IHO does not change the name, yet a vast majority of sources (including outside the US) switch to "Gulf of America" anyway. There's very little chance of either happening. Under any other condition, the article as it presently is will be fine, acknowledging the Trump administration's propagandistic desire to change the name, which few independent parties have taken up, so we give it little weight and space.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option B because wait until hurricane season. Mast303 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B followed by C - 12 months seems a bit long to me, but not unreasonable. Given the SNOW result above, there seems little chance of a change in consensus any time soon (if ever). Three months seems too short - while there has been little recent disruption, there's also no reason to have a large number of editors weigh in on lengthy new RFCs every three months. CAVincent (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C with B as a fallback option. The issue is less prevalent now, thankfully, but given how disruptive the constant drivebys were before the moratorium, and the lack of any real movement, I think we should definitely lock it down for longer. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C is probably the most efficient way to get us to the WP:10YEARTEST. Einsof (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DMY dates?

MOS:DATETIES would seem to indicate that this article should use MDY dates, but the article is tagged with {{use dmy dates}}. Looking back, in July 2017, it said to use MDY dates. Seven years later, at the end of 2024, it still said to use MDY dates. Someone removed that indication without mentioning it in their edit summary on 8 January 2025, and then the same editor added a DMY tag the next day, and I'm not sure anyone noticed. Many of dates in the article are not, in fact, formatted as DMY. Can we reach a consensus that the article should use MDY dates, since it is highly-relevant to the United States, which overwhelmingly uses MDY dates? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article should be using MDY. It appears that the former editor that switched the tag to DMY is now indefinitely blocked, for reasons involving date mischief. I don't want to switch up the dates in the article at the moment, but definitely anything not MDY should be switched up. CAVincent (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I plan to go ahead with making the dates consistently MDY pretty soon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But per WP:IAR do we want to retain DMY for the usual reason that it makes logical sense and MDY doesn't? I notice this article also uses the metric system (except for a statement in the lede about nautical miles, whatever those are), which is refreshing. Einsof (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 edits ago, the article as of July 2020 seems to have primarily been using miles, although it was a bit mixed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hold off for consensus, @BarrelProof, this is a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's contentious, but it was a recent undiscussed change of longstanding stable status, performed by a banned user. I already reverted it to MDY (before your comment). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof, see below discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been retained per DATEVAR, and is regionally appropriate, so MDY it should be. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question re MOS:DATETIES : what do most bordering countries use? Valereee (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to List of date formats by country, Mexico and Cuba use DMY. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 20:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So we'd normally use DMY? @BarrelProof, is there any reason we shouldn't go with what would be normal in this situation? Valereee (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see you already made that change. Can you revert yourself for more discussion? Valereee (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mexico and Cuba are not countries that primarily speak English, and there is a third country that also borders the gulf, and that country is an English-speaking country with what appears to be a roughly equal or larger portion of the gulf coastline and a larger population near it, so this is not a situation where it is clear that "we'd normally use DMY", and it appears that the article was tagged for more than seven years as using MDY without apparent controversy before an undiscussed change by a banned user. No, I won't self-revert my revert. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aight. It would show good faith to revert to allow discussion to continue, but aight. Valereee (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My edit does not disallow further discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, friend. Just trying to moderate discussion at a contentious topic. You do you. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing on all of this. I wouldn't consider Mexican and Cuban usage irrelevant, but if regional MDY and DMY norms conflict then English wikipedia should defer to the English-speaking nation that has strong ties to the article's subject. And yes, it looks like the undiscussed switch to a DMY tag earlier this year may have been lost in all the noise over naming. I certainly hadn't noticed until BarrelProof pointed it out. CAVincent (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Drifting away from the DMY question, I notice that the article says "The US portion of the coastline spans 2,700 km ...", but I could not find similar statements about the amount of gulf coastline for Mexico and Cuba. Maybe it's somewhere in the article, but I didn't find it easily. That would be nice to have in the article. Possibly this is an easier question to answer for the US than for the other countries, because of the way it depends on determining the boundaries of the gulf – especially in the case of Cuba (and Cuba includes multiple islands, so one would need to decide whether to include the coastlines of minor islands). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This news source says Mexico has a longer Gulf Coast than the US, but doesn't give a figure for Cuba. I wish I could find a better source, but I haven't looked very hard yet. Donald Albury 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I added that to the article. I assume the boundary of the gulf is somewhere near Cancún? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this article is says that the boundary of the Gulf runs from Cabo Catoche at the northernmost point of the Yucatan Peninsula to the westernmost point of Cuba, so a little north of Cancun. Donald Albury 23:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that article cites an authoritative source (a 1953 publication of the IHO). I added that to this article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a number of news sources this year claim that Mexico has 1,743 miles of coastline compared to 1,680 miles for the US. (A), (B), (C), (D) None of them appear to source the distance to anything official. Trying to search for articles from 2022 or before comes up empty.
    Our article Geography of Mexico claims it is 2,805 km for both the Gulf and the Caribbean combined. Also with no source as far as I can see. The states that boarder the Gulf (Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, and part of Quintana Roo) do not all list their coastline in their articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny – when I look at it on a map, it looks like the US portion of the gulf coastline is longer than the Mexican one. Is that just me? According to this, Cuba has only about 60 miles of official gulf coastline. This site says 236 miles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]