Talk:Timor-Leste

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that some areas of East Timor have mobile courts? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that the majority of East Timor's annual budget comes from the country's state-owned Petroleum Fund? Source: search "80%"
  • ALT2: ... that there are roughly 19 indigenous languages spoken in East Timor, from two separate language groups? Source: pg. 136 pg.10
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Formed Police Unit
  • Comment: Other hook ideas welcome!

Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 16:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/East Timor; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Recently off a fairly thorough GA review, this is a—to a lay person—comprehensive article, well written and referenced. Article has previously appeared on the main page, but not in DYK and other appearances are a few years ago. Hooks are interesting, from the article, and referenced. DYK done.

@Chipmunkdavis: given that many people probably don't know much about East Timor, any number of alt hooks are possible, even for more general facts, e.g. "... that following the end of Portuguese colonial rule in 1975, East Timor was occupied by Indonesia until 1999?". I also found the use of local fractional coins for the US dollar a nice factoid, especially as it goes with a picture, but this would need to be mentioned and referenced in the article first.

I have also some quibbles regarding ALT0, as the relevant part of the article, Geographical access to courts remains a challenge and has prompted the development of mobile courts is very close to what the source says ("Geographical access to courts remains a challenge. Many municipalities have no fixed courts and rely on mobile services. The government has established mobile courts") so as to be WP:PARAPHRASE.

For ALT1, as the article and the source make a distinction between the budget, the fund, and government expenditure (80% of government spending comes from this fund, which as of 2021 had $19 billion, 10 times greater than the size of the national budget.) and the relationship between these is not spelt out, I'd recommend rephrasing to "... that the majority of East Timor's government expenditure comes from the country's state-owned Petroleum Fund?".

That's it for now Constantine ✍ 09:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. I have a personal preference towards avoiding a hook focused on history, and especially the occupation. I feel more positive about a hook that expresses something about the country as it is now. On local US Dollar coins, I can add that to the article, it does not feel undue as a short note. Re mobile courts, I will reword the article sentence. Re ALT1, no objection to that rephrasing. As before, also no objection to further hooks, I have been immersed in this article for awhile, so input as to what is interesting from others is very helpful. CMD (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I figured you wanted to focus on positive aspects. Just wanted to point out that most people might be drawn in by something more 'spectacular'. On the hooks:

ALT1 is now "... that the majority of East Timor's government expenditure comes from the country's state-owned Petroleum Fund?"

And I suggest an additional ALT3 "... that East Timor uses the United States dollar, but produces its own coins to facilitate smaller transactions?"

Otherwise all is good to go. A fine article! Constantine ✍ 12:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi presidential vs parliamentary

What is the idea came from the east timor's government system? I don't know in my mind if timor leste was previously listed as a parliamentary republic one time on one of the instagram post. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:5DF:9A77:C364:2260 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of word appointed

with the popularly elected president sharing power with a prime minister appointed by the National Parliament.

What does the word appointment means on the context of politics? I think the word appointed reminds me with the phrase dental appointment. 182.3.44.99 (talk) 182.3.44.99 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See any dictionary, such as Wiktionary, where it's the second definition given. Largoplazo (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

East Timor or Timor-Leste?

Why is the article titled East Timor? Im confused by this because East Timor is the former name. Since the official name is Timor-Leste, why isnt the article titled Timor-Leste? 2600:8803:2B17:5900:58FB:E17:EF92:B27A (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See the list of previous discussions on this near the top of this page, beginning "This article has previously been nominated to be moved." The core of the matter is that we go by the guidance of WP:COMMONNAME, under which the official name isn't the deciding factor. Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Because we do not necessarily use the official name. Our country articles use the name in common usage in English. It is the current consensus that English usage is "East Timor". If you think that English usage is actually "Timor-Leste", it is up to you to prove that. Note that the country itself is NOT a source for current English usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP, don't even try to prove it even you believe to have sufficient quantitative and qualitative evidence for a significant and lasting shift of common usage in English, unless your evidence is overwhelming. This is the main takeaway of the last move discussion. There is definitely no consensus among editors that English usage is "East Timor", but there is no consensus for the same claim about "Timor-Leste", either. In such a case, WP follows the inertia principle, summed up as "no consensus to move". –Austronesier (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Our nation wanted to be called as Timor-Leste not East Timor. East Timor was Timor-Leste’s colonial name under Indonesian rule. Af if you think that Indonesia does not speak English, the government actually translates geographical names to English. I know it’s the common English name for my country, but it has a dark memory to the nation. Just try to be more respectful to my nation’s decision even if it needs adjustment to make it common. Because we are talking about my nation’s identity here, not your identity. For me as a Timorese, I think we need a new consensus for this. Mariowiki0097 (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally behind the times when it comes to naming and terms use because we look at past academic publications for research......but all can find it as Timor-Leste is a redirect. Moxy- 06:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that "Timor-Leste" was the country's colonial name under Portuguese rule, and that it means exactly the same thing as "East Timor" so its exactly as dark, just expressing that darkness in another language, why aren't you rejecting that name as well? Colonial names are bad or colonial names are great? Largoplazo (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The collective dynamic lying behind common usage is irrational.

The historical baggage that comes with names and words is irrational.

Non-evidence-based arguments in move discussions are irrational.

The first thing is sometimes hard to accept for people who feel "affected". The second thing is sometimes hard to understand from the outside persective. The third one, well, is annyoing, but Wikipedians are human too. –Austronesier (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The country calls itself TIMOR-LESTE on its English language website: http://timor-leste.gov.tl/?lang=en

The UN lists the country as TIMOR-LESTE not EAST TIMOR.

The CIA lists the country as TIMOR-LESTE not EAST TIMOR.

https://www.cia.gov/resources/world-leaders/foreign-governments/timor-leste

Thus intended name for English speakers is TIMOR-LESTE. As a native English speaker I find calling the country/Wikipedia page EAST TIMOR quite offensive.

The page should be called TIMOR-LESTE. Anything else is plain wrong. The name EAST TIMOR should be used in parenthesis only. Blue Moses (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to launch a worldwide campaign among the publishers of English-language works to change what they're calling it. When it becomes the predominant name in use for it, then we'll switch. You're asking the tail to wag the dog. Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And as a native English speaker I find the East Timorese government's assertion that they know how to speak my language better than I do to be highly offensive. So I guess the two of us cancel each other out. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I know you're being facetious but that sort of attitude really isn't helpful here - someone asking you to call them by their preferred name is absolutely not the same thing as claiming they know English better than you, but we should also not be treating some forms of English as better than others. Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. And the name for a particular piece of the ground is in no way the same as a PERSON's name. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Timor Leste is also colonial name lol, the difference just Timor Leste come from Portuguese. East Timor is just translation version of Timor Leste. Illchy (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Timor-Leste please! Failing that drop the redirect so that at least the new nation can get its own page.

As for why this rename keeps failing, it's depressing. At least the Australian media has moved on. Cagneya (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you equally depressed that the respective articles about the United Kingdom at Portuguese and Tetum Wikipedia are titled Reino Unido and Reinu Naklibur, and not United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs)

WP:UE doesn't require that the name is English, it requires that the name is used in English. It's why eSwatini isn't still at Swaziland, or Burkina Faso isn't still Upper Volta. Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Turnagra and Cagneya: Please have a good look at Talk:East_Timor/Archive_7#Requested_move_6_January_2023 before continuing here without substantial qualitative and quantitative evidence. Too often this discussion is characterized by assertions (from both sides) about predominant usage out of thin air. I'll be back in Jan 2024, not with a move discussion, but just plain metrics for usage in 2023. –Austronesier (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier I feel like I should clarify - I'm well aware of rhe history on the page name here (and the equivalent on the Ivory Coast page), and I'm not proposing that we launch yet another move request. My previous comment was more because I found the two comments opposing the notion above to be unhelpful and problematic rather than constructively explaining the issue. Turnagra (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier yes, I've read the discussion. Like I said, depressing.

Here are searches from the Australian Media I could think of using Timor-Leste. Remember Australia is only a few hundred km from the island so surely that carries far more weight than some distant publication that hasn't been and will unlikely be updated in years.

This is the Australian National Broadcaster https://discover.abc.net.au/index.html?siteTitle=news#/?query=timor-leste&refinementList%5Bsite.title%5D%5B0%5D=ABC%20News

This is the Murdoch press https://www.news.com.au/search-results?q=timor-leste

This is the SMH family https://www.smh.com.au/search?text=timor-leste

9News (was MSN?) https://search.nine.com.au/?q=timor-leste&site=news

and so on Cagneya (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Listing increasing numbers of of sources that use the name you'd like to have the article moved to is insufficient. There isn't some tipping point, whether it's 10 or 20 or 50, beyond which a new name automatically prevails. What's needed is a demonstration that the new name predominates over the old one. What does a similar search for "East Timor" reveal? Largoplazo (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether the name is in English wasn't my point. It was that so often people write about how offensive it is that Wikipedia uses the long-standing English name for such-and-such country, while the natives of that same country use their own names for English-speaking countries and don't imagine themselves to be committing any offense by doing so. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually amazed Wikipedia doesn't use the official name. To me, it smells like lingering remnants of colonialism. I think a lot of sources think the official English name is East Timor precisely because the largest encyklopedia in the world features the name *East Timor* as the *correct* name, and including a sly 'also called Timor-Leste' in its introduction, as if it's some sort of second-rate proposal. Quite simply, I'm amazed, and this won't likely change any soon because Timor-Leste is such a small country with no clout to change the minds of English native speakers turning their nose up at all these tiny little nations insisting on their name being used right. One wonders how eSwatini got its name changed approved in the English Wikipedia. — Jetro (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. It's as though you've never read Wikipedia's guidelines on this topic, about which there's nothing colonial. "One wonders how eSwatini got its name change approved ..."—there's nothing to wonder about, it's because your premise is wrong in the first place. Discard your premise, look at the guidelines, look at the discussion where the decision was made, and there won't be anything to wonder about. There's no reason to have to wonder, it's all right there, in black and white, completely transparent.

People were calling it "East Timor" before there was a Wikipedia, and most people have never looked up the article in Wikipedia. Finally, "Timor-Leste" is Portuguese, and Portugal was the actual colonial overlord, so anyone desperate to have Wikipedia rename the article "Timor-Leste" must really be the ones who are pining for the days of colonialism, right?

So please stop with the conspiracy theory-style accusations. Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Propose a moratorium on move requests

That said, there are still several sources indicate for us why we should oppose instead of support such "East Timor to Timor-Leste" renaming-ism, as we are not stucking on UN-Names. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support an unlimited moratorium on move requests that are a) solely based on WP:OFFICIALNAME and completely ignore our naming conventions; b) provide zero metric evidence except for cherry-picked individual attestations.

Even with metric evidence, everyone should be aware of the bar that User:Kahastok has set: evidence for usage of the proposed target title should not simply outnumber the current title, but do so in non-official and non-officialese sources (e.g. not just texts from international organizations, or NGO texts that often perfunctorily ape UN officialese style; see our discussions in Talk:Turkey). It's usage in mainstream media that counts. Without considering this criterion, any new move request will just become a time sink.

FWIW, I would also like to propose to add a moratorium on sophisms, dim misapprehensions about WP:USEENGLISH and dirty tricks (like citing 10-year old corpora) in future move discussions. But this is already covered (in theory, at least) by behavioral policies, I guess. –Austronesier (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now purely because most Australian media outlets use Timor-Leste and not East Timor. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I favor a two-year moratorium. If actual usage shifts in favor of "Timor-Leste", then Wikipedia should reflect that, but any measure on which that would be based is inherently fuzzy that it isn't as though there will be an exact day on which the shift happens, and there's nothing so urgent about it that we absolutely must convene to resolve in favor of the change on that non-existent specific day. Two years is sufficient time to allow to go by before reconsideration while allowing those of us with this article in our watchlists some respite. Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless I'm mistaken, I'm only seeing two move requests in the past five years. That doesn't seem like the sort of volume that would necessitate a moratorium. Turnagra (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - there is nothing that warrants putting a moratorium on open discussions regarding the naming practices around this country. Absolutely ludicrous to try to squash these talks. And quite frankly, if your watchlists need respite, remove the article from the watchlist - the idea that discussion should be halted for two years so you can "take a break" from all the notifications is crazy. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

there is nothing that warrants putting a moratorium on open discussions regarding the naming practices around this country is a false premise. What warrants it is that there is virtually nothing to be gained by holding the same discussions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over within a short interval, repeating arguments that have been rehashed dozens of times when, meanwhile, the underlying data that has to change in order for the final outcome to change has virtually not budged. Meanwhile, it constantly pulls away the attention of those who have the article on their watchlists, who, exhausted from the endless rehashing, decide to ignore the article, with the result that posts about genuinely new issues will be overlooked, completely drowned out by the torrent of messages from people who won't let the matter go for a reasonable amount of time. (I am not referring here to people who broach the change in good faith without having participated in or read the previous discussions, but to those who take it up, at great length without saying anything novel, at every opportunity.)

TL;DR: It's disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support a one-year moratorium for reasons I expressed above. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - They want to be called Timor-Leste. We shouldn't be holding on to traditional names, and certainly not using wiki protocols to prevent discussion. Drpixie (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2024

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: moved. I would like to direct people to my closure at Bangalore → Bengaluru, as many of the points I wish to make are also there; to wit: past RMs are guiding but not binding – indeed, in these sorts of name-change RMs it's actually a good idea to check back every so often – and USEENGLISH does not prohibit the use of foreign language names if those names are attested to in common English-language speech.

Gauging the tipping point for when a certain term becomes more common is a delicate art. The NOW corpus is actually rather helpful, in this regard, because we can see a slow but certain trend towards "Timor Leste" in news sources. WP:NAMECHANGES states that we should put more weight onto more recent sources, which is what we finally ended up doing. I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

---

East Timor → Timor-Leste – Previous moves have established that Portuguese sources, Australian sources, CIA, UN, and others do use Timor-Leste which arguably makes it common name, but previous moves failed because Timor-Leste is supposedly a political name. It is not. In Indonesia, the country from which Timor-Leste gained independence, Timor-Leste is the name of the country, and East Timor (province) is the name of the former province.

Timor Leste (without the dash) is the article title of the country in the following languages: Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Basa Bali, Jawa, Sunda, Acèh, Minangkabau. Timor Timur (translation of East Timor without disambiguation) is the article name of the province in the following languages: Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu. The languages are explained in the following paragraph.

Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) is the lingua franca of Indonesia and is a variant of Bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) is the lingua franca of the region including countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and others. Basa Bali (Balinese language) is the language in Bali, the exotic island in Indonesia. Jawa (Javanese language) and Sunda (Sundanese language) are languages in Java, the most-populous island in Indonesia. Acèh (Acehnese language) and Minangkabau (Minangkabau language) are languages in Sumatra, the second most-populous island in Indonesia.

I view the arguments made in favor of previous moves have been consistent with policies and guidelines. In this move, I aim to provide assurances to the remaining holdouts, moving the page is at least as safe as retaining the status quo. If this succeeds the province can now be the primary topic for East Timor. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the arguments will be "Timor Leste (without the dash) is the article title of the country in the [other] languages" and, paraphrased, "political organizations like the UN recognize Timor-Leste, Türkiye or Czechia" do it simply for political reasons, then there is no argument. This is the English Wikipedia and we follow common use, not political use. This style is still in use; after 5 RMs, nominators have constantly failed to provide a valid reason to move. A moratorium as proposed above should be seriously discussed. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We strictly follow common name, Timor-Leste is the common name, it is not a political name, as a member of Gen Z, I have only known Timor-Leste as the real name of the real country, until I stumbled upon this article. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  You note, correctly, that we go by common name—but then you appear to define "common name" as "what Kenneth Kho knows it as", which is an incorrect interpretation of that guideline. Largoplazo (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The country has been independent for a while now so it is about time the WP:OFFICIALNAME is used. Theparties (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:COMMONNAME. We don't go by the official name but by the name in most common use. Largoplazo (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This has been proposed many times, most recently in 2023. Discussion links can be found at the top of the talkpage. 162 etc. (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proponent made no relevant argument to justify the move. What editors conversant in a number of southeast Asian languages have chosen to call articles on their Wikipedias has no bearing in the slightest as to what the article should be titled here. Regarding the impression that ... previous moves failed because Timor-Leste is supposedly a political name, I don't even know what that means. It failed because consensus failed to be reach that application of the relevant guidelines regarding the common name favored the move.

For perspective, the proponent should note that none of the Wikipedias for those other languages lists the United States and the United Kingdom under those English titles. In particular, the Tetum Wikipedia articles are tet:Estadu Naklibur Sira Amérika Nian and tet:Reinu Naklibur. And that's as it should be because that's what those countries are called in Tetum. Has anyone ever proposed moving any article about the US or the UK on any other Wikipedia to their English titles? I doubt it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-English languages don't refer to United States and United Kingdom as such, but a lot of non-Portuguese languages refer to Timor-Leste as such where convenient. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't weaken the point that no one language's Wikipedia is obliged to use another country's designation for itself, English Wikipedia no more than all those other Wikipedias. Largoplazo (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Previous moves did not fail because Timor-Leste was considered a political name, they failed because attending editors were not convinced that it was more common than East Timor. CMD (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Largoplazo --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom, another of those stupid moves that is so obvious and would never be reverted when done, but Wikipedians are hard headed. It's obvious this is the "correct" name for the country.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support - it is time for this move. Timor-Leste is the WP:Commonname now. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will enter into the record of the evidence indicating that WP:COMMONNAME has long favored the move. This article is written in British English, according to Google Trends in the last ten years (January 2015 - December 2024), Timor Leste (without a dash) has remained the dominant search term in the United Kingdom [2], and the slightly leading search term in the United States [3].

  If we look at the News on the Web (NOW) corpus [4], which has been collected by the English Corpora organization since 2010, we have the following English usage data, showing that Timor-Leste (with a dash) has decisively overtaken East Timor every year in the last 7 years (2018-2024, in fact by a 2:1 ratio this year), with Timor-Leste and Timor Leste collectively having done the same in the last 9 years (2016-2024): Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're comparing uses of search terms? People are more likely to look something up when they don't even know what it is. If "timor leste" is a more common search query than "east timor", that could be because the former is seen so rarely that those who do encounter it are more likely to wonder what the hell it is and try to find out, whereas "east timor" is more familiar to them and they have no need to search for it. So search queries aren't a good gauge of use. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  People don't search Germany or Deutschland because they don't know what it is, they want more information about the country. Kenneth Kho (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  They do that too, but I'm astonished by your assertion that people don't search for words and phrases to find out what they are. Largoplazo (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

NOW corpus

Searchname	Total	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
East Timor	11262	351	288	624	527	587	385	949	1106	882	1283	860	714	1187	709	810
Timor Leste	3536	22	29	31	123	70	191	512	411	410	490	160	183	311	292	301
Timor-Leste	9868	63	55	147	176	320	127	646	715	1021	1304	1013	844	1070	837	1530

• Comment @Kenneth Kho: You're almost there (and really, you should have done the NOW survey before opening a move discussion). What you still need to verify (per the previous move discussion) is whether these attestations come from a wide range of sources, especially including major news outlets. One of the outcomes of my earlier surveys was that while numerically, attestations of "Timor(-)Leste" already outnumbered those for "East Timor", they mostly came from the kind of sources that tend to follow "officialese" usage, i.e. to names for countries which are preferred/promoted by their respective governments, but without actually reflecting common usage. Such sources include bulletins/reports of internatioal organizations (UNESCO, World Bank, NGOs etc.). Major news outlets still made up a minority of attesting sources, although those in the region (Straits Times, and some Australian news sites) already showed a clear preference for "Timor(-)Leste". I'll await your analysis of 2024 attestations before I !vote to support or oppose the move request. –Austronesier (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I found that BBC, Canadian Inquirer, Indian Express, Pakistan Today, Phys.org, Politico, WashingtonPost, LA Times using Timor-Leste this year. I have only found one instance of officialese from HRW looking at 1400 out of 1500 instances before I ran out of my usage limit. This along with the Google Trends results from the United Kingdom and the United States should be enough to establish it as COMMONNAME. At any rate, the NOW survey should not have been necessary, the last RM has clearly and convincingly established this as COMMONNAME, so at first I aimed to shut down arguments that the name is somehow political. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  These discussions always have been marred/dominated by poor arguments in favor of a move and equally poor non-policy-based sophisms (including poor misreadings of WP:USEENGLISH) against a move. You don't have to cater to this kind of discourse. Referring to usage in languages other than English was an especially poor start.
  In the last RM, User:Kahastok made a strong point that mere counts do not necessarily prove a robust shift in common usage that is not just restricted to certain circles and types of sources. If you can substantiate that e.g. BBC and WaPo not just have used "Timor-Leste" on certain occasions, but consistently do so in most of their articles, you will have (IMHO) succeeded to prove that usage has robustly passed the tipping point in favor of "Timor-Leste". –Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  In the case of BBC, it can be seen here [5] that they have used Timor-Leste in every article this year, with the visit of the Pope to the country this year prompting the change. This makes two major British major sources, BBC and Guardian, now using Timor-Leste (remember this article follows British English). In the case of WaPo, Google searches comparing exact term "East Timor" and "Timor-Leste" showed that they are roughly even this entire year, contrasted to 2022 where Timor-Leste is only used incidentally (2023 does not count as Kissinger's death dominated the coverage). In the unreliable Daily Mail UK, a lot of sensational articles somehow mentioned the country, this year, 22 articles mentioned Timor-Leste, 28 articles mentioned East Timor. In the case of CNN, they did not use Timor-Leste in 2022, they now use Timor-Leste occasionally in 2024, with the majority being East Timor (there was one time they qualified it with ", also known as Timor-Leste"). Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The NOW corpus presented above shows that we should be using the new COMMONNAME as per WP:NAMECHANGES- by giving weight to newer articles. Seems clear that Timor-Leste is the commonname in the 2020s. Additionally helps with disambiguation and the arguments against are unconvincing. The RM proposer has, contrary to some comments, provided a reason for the move (commonname).

Other arguments agaisnt the move are also unconvincing. The commonname survey and argument at heart is about English articles (fulfilling WP:USEENGLISH) with the comments about other language wikipedias being ancillary. The name being "political" isn't for editors to judge but for the sources to judge (per WP:NPOV. If English language sources are commonly using it for whatever reason- it is still the common name. The provisions editors may be referring to are about official names, which are different from these sources using Timor-leste in a common manner. I do not believe that the BBC, WaPo etc are official mouthpieces of the Timorese government.

While most of the original move request reasons are less relevant to policy, but that does not change the fact that Timor-Leste is the commonname. It would be wasteful practice to close this RM for "insufficient initial reasoning" when others have provided better policy-based reasoning and then have to go through the RM again in some filibuster-y fashion. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The task is to demonstrate that a change should be made, not to demonstrate that it shouldn't. Decreeing "it seems clear" that Timor-Leste is the common name doesn't make the case that it is. The original proposal doesn't provide any justification for the change that takes into account what the requirements for enacting such a change are. The first paragraph is based on a false premise. The second and third paragraphs are completely off-topic and the final one declares a conclusion with no indication what relevant considerations it follows from. Largoplazo (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I literally began my comment with "The NOW corpus". Which I thought would be clear by context to refer to the conspicuous table of hard search terms above. The original proposal is not the only argument to be considered in an RM. The whole point I made is that the opposing arguments are too focused on the flaws of the original argument trying to strike it down on bureaucratic minutia rather than the data about WP:NAMECHANGES in reliable sources. Glad we agree that the other arguments like foreign wikis and and it being "political" is irrelevant. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tbhotch, Largoplazo and Khajidha. This is one of a handful of perennial nominations that posit a foreign-language name as the English exonym of a country. The most recent discussions regarding this general topic were at Talk:Ivory Coast#Requested move 27 June 2024 (although a move review had to be initiated to restore the English-language name) and Talk:Turkey#Turkey changed the country name to Türkiye in June 2022. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is not how WP:USEENGLISH works, it does not mean that you need to translate every country into English, such as calling China by translating its Chinese name 中国 into "Central State". Translating Timor-Leste into "East Timor" is not how this works. Kenneth Kho (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're correct that it doesn't work that way. The way it works is by asking what English speakers call the subject, which may be, word-for-word, an anglicization or not. The English name for China is "China". The English name for Црна Гора is Montenegro—neither the original name nor an anglicization of it but, rather, a Venetian translation of it. The English name for Северна Македонија is "North Macedonia", which is an anglicization. The English name for Finland has nothing to do at all with the Finns' name for their own country, "Suomi". All of these relationships between countries' own names for themselves and the English names for them exist, and I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. The relevant question is what do English speakers actually call a given country, regardless of how they arrived at that name. Largoplazo (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  A word for word translation into plain etymologically derived words of Timor-Leste would presumably be East East, not East Timor. CMD (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support: By far, this country itself and neighbouring Indonesia have generally used the term "Timor-Leste" (with or without a hyphen, except in historical contexts, especially in the name of former province), while other countries such as Australia might still use "East Timor". However, the usage of latter term is currently declining in all countries in favour of "Timor-Leste", since it is seen as a denial to the country's sovereignty (similar to the case of "the Ukraine" instead of simply "Ukraine").   DDG9912   03:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  We go by what the country is called in English sources, not in sources written in a variety of southeast Asian languages. Note that none of the Wikipedias for those languages have articles titled "United States" or "United Kingdom". Also, considering that "Leste" is Portuguese, the country, by your logic, in choosing to continue using the name given to it by its colonial oppressors is in denial of its own sovereignty. Largoplazo (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is not "by your logic", but it is how reliable sources judged it when they shifted usage. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fine. Then the country, by their logic, in choosing to continue using the name given to it by its colonial oppressors is in denial of its own sovereignty. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Despite opinions to the contrary, Indonesian sources are, in fact, able to write in English. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'll write up my own views on this in a bit when I've had a chance to look into it more, but already I think it's worth some general reminders and clearing up some misconceptions that seem to be cropping up again, as they tend to do on these move requests:

WP:USEENGLISH doesn't mean "Use the name with English words". This simply means that we use the name as it is used in English-language sources, regardless of what language that name comes from. We use Eswatini, despite that name coming from Swazi, because that's how it's known in English. We don't use Deutschland, because in English it's known as Germany.

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE is a thing. While there have been move requests in the past, we should be assessing the situation as it currently stands and shouldn't be shutting a discussion down just because it's happened often previously.

Watch out for WP:BLUDGEONING. I already see a few users on both sides of the argument replying to any comment disagreeing with them, which is not what this should be about.

I'm hoping that we'll be able to have a respectful discussion and ensure that any points are backed up by evidence, rather than just vibes. Turnagra (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support - life is way too short to argue about this stuff. This is the most common name in English-language reliable sources. Red Slash 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and !votes above. The corpus has caught up with the reality of the name change, and they are now in alignment. BD2412 T 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Default Oppose. I find these RMs rather frustrating. Like so often with RMs on this article, I think the initial rationale was very poor, and if that were the best case that could be made, then strong oppose is the only answer. It focusses on usage in languages other than English - which is 100% irrelevant - and the rest is based on the straw man that previous moves failed because Timor-Leste is supposedly a political name - no, they failed based on WP:COMMONNAME. And it seems to me that votes that endorse such a poor nomination devalue themselves in doing so. If someone genuinely thinks that we should call it Timor-Leste primarily because that's what they do in Bahasa Indonesia - which is what "support per nom" means in this RM - that doesn't say much for their understanding of policy.

That said, I am certain that the case we've been presented with here is not the best case that could be made for a move.

If you want to convince people like me that the article should be moved, a better case doesn't just need to exist, it needs to be made. Don't tell me that usage has changed. Show me that it has changed. Show me reliable English-language sources from English-speaking sources that are independent of governments, that used to use East Timor and now use Timor-Leste. Show me a range of such sources and show me that they use Timor-Leste as a matter of policy, independently decided in the interests of their readers. In doing that, acknowledge those sources that still use East Timor (Timor-Leste does not have to be universal) but show me that they are now a minority. I don't know which way the balance would fall if the best possible case were made. But with the case that has been made, oppose is the only answer for me. Kahastok talk 15:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Largoplazo and others. The statistics for worldwide global usage are not the same thing as usage in English language reliable sources. Here for instance is the Encyclopedia Britannica online page for "East Timor". Moonraker (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 750h+ 19:22, 23 December 2024 (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.

Post-close discussion

User:Sceptre, if you believe:

The NOW corpus is actually rather helpful, in this regard, because we can see a slow but certain trend towards "Timor Leste" in news sources. WP:NAMECHANGES states that we should put more weight onto more recent sources, which is what we finally ended up doing. I am satisfied that "Timor Leste" is now the dominant term.

Then that should be the contents of a !vote in the discussion, not the closing statement. Closing the discussion based on what you think the result should be rather than on the discussion is a WP:SUPERVOTE. I would ask that you withdraw your close and request another editor close the discussion based on the content of the discussion. Kahastok talk 11:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, virtually all oppose-!votes (especially post-17 Dec) also are not based on the content of the discussion. User:Kenneth Kho's NOW survey from 17 Dec and my subsequent challenges to Kennth Kho – all of which they answered – have been for the most part ignored. I agree however that the closer should refrain from a WP:SUPERVOTE. Instead, they should weigh each !vote by the amount of attention it actually gives to all arguments made during the discussion (which would turn many of the !votes into fluff). –Austronesier (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a requirement that !votes be based on the entire preceding content of the discussion - people are allowed to judge the case based on the policy and they aren't required to answer every argument they disagree with. Shoot, they aren't even required to read the entire discussion before commenting. The alternative would be to require people to start WP:BLUDGEONing the process to an unhealthy degree. On the other hand, the closer is required make a judgement based on what is said in the discussion, and not based on their personal opinion of the topic at hand.

(FTR I personally don't view the NOW corpus as authoritative or definitive, largely because it's just a set of statistics that - like all statistics - can be misused.) Kahastok talk 15:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a point that, I admit, I didn't communicate that clearly in the close (it was after midnight, apologies). If there wasn't the NOW corpus to guide us, then the result would be "no consensus" (or perhaps, a relist) because, in the end, there truly would be no consensus on what the COMMONNAME would be. But the NOW corpus changed that balance, because it gave the weight of evidence entirely to one side. If both sides agree that the article should be titled on the basis of a policy, but the level of evidence for each side is vastly different, then any competent closer would go with the one with evidence. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

All sides will always agree article titles should be based on the exact same policy, as that policy is Wikipedia:Article titles, outside of very rare IAR cases I suppose. A close is meant to be based on evaluating the discussion, it is not meant to be a closer's personal view on the impact of the NOW corpus or other item. A competent close is not an individual assessment of the evidence at hand. After thinking about this response, I do feel the close, with its reference to a similar MR and individual evidence assessment, should be reworked to be included as a !vote. CMD (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised this got closed without a relist. I was going to comment, but didn't get mine in before the close because I was only aware of the discussion as it ended (which is not the closer's fault at all, it's on me); either way, I thought this discussion looked like there was no consensus in its current state, and I thought the arguments were a fair bit weaker than the Bengaluru move. I do personally prefer the current title, but I'm not convinced policy supports it, and I'm even less convinced that this discussion supports the move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My ick is not so much with the closer, but with the large number of commenters who did not provide bolded votes, and the large number of people who are apparently aware of the discussion but did not chime in. It had to be closed early because nobody is attending it anymore, I would support relist if and only if there are a sufficient number of editors who want to put their bolded votes in, otherwise we are just wasting time. The support side has 8-7 votes in favor (including nom) and has presented data. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Was not aware of the discussion. Would happily post a bolded vote if relisted. Srnec (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho: in case you have missed it: people place a !vote (= "not a vote"), not a vote. For a good closer, every comment (with or without a !vote) counts and can be used to establish where consenus lies. –Austronesier (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the close is a fair representation of the discussion at hand. Evidence firmly pointed towards usage having shifted, while those opposing the move either did so because it happened too often, because of moves (or a lack thereof) on other pages, or because of a single source (the Encyclopedia Britannica). While the NOW Corpus is "just" statistics, that's exactly what's needed as it provides a clear view of usage at large. Both sides would easily be able to cherry pick sources that support their view, but a view at large overview like that allows us to see the big picture easily. I was also planning to comment and didn't have a chance, but I'm not fussed about the close. Turnagra (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)