Talk:Comic Book Resources

Requested move 7 November 2023

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

---

• Comic Book Resources → CBR
• CBR → CBR (disambiguation)

– As evidenced by the website itself, as well as its various social media channels, the outlet formerly known as Comic Book Resources now operates solely as CBR. See:

https://www.cbr.com/page/about/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/officialcbr/ https://www.tiktok.com/@officialcbr https://www.facebook.com/CBROfficialPage/ JonArvedon (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment @JonArvedon: Unless you think CBR (website) is an acceptable alternative, can you explain why CBR applies to this site more than the other entries currently at CBR? -2pou (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not necessarily opposed to CBR (website). The primary purpose of this request is to deviate from the old "Comic Book Resources" name in favor of the site's current name, CBR. So, if a variation of that is necessary, that would be acceptable. JonArvedon (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, not the primary topic. Note that this has been discussed before; see above. 162 etc. (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, however, this was three years ago, at which time the About Us page on the site and a number of our prominent social media channels still referred to the site as Comic Book Resources. This is currently no longer the case. JonArvedon (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  You use the word "our" in the above comment. Please see WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE. 162 etc. (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I think I added the disclosure correctly? JonArvedon (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support CBR (website) - The outlet was relaunched in 2016 & news coverage of the outlet has referred to it as CBR since. It would also eliminate confusion by other editors when CBR is linked to (I've found editors in reception sections changing it from CBR to Comic Book Resources to align it with the article title over the current outlet name). However, I don't think it should supersede the disambiguation page (so CBR (website) over just CBR). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the second move, and therefore also the first: That is not the only topic known as CBR. The nominator hasn't even addressed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed No evidence presented by the nominator that Comic Book Resources is the primary topic of CBR. Support CBR (website). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBR (website) oppose second, no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=CBR indicates that this topic was on the top of the list of reader interest in September, but only barely, and we're only recognizing 55 visits to it out of a total of 534 visits to CBR, and there's comparable traffic to several other topics, so that part of the proposal should not be done. I've got no opinion on the other part. --Joy (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBR (website), I think it's likely the most common item in the disambiguation set but not enough to be primary. Skynxnex (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Move to CBR (website). I agree that CBR is the WP:COMMONNAME for this website, especially when considering WP:NAMECHANGES, but also concur with the commenters who dispute its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status. Thus, CBR (website) is an ideal compromise that addresses both issues. (As a corollary, this also means I oppose moving the DAB page.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose it doesn't seem likely primary per views[1]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support to CBR (website) Cambalachero (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Move to CBR (website), since there's no evidence this is the primary topic for the string "CBR".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose original request per WP:PRIMARY; strong oppose CBR (website) per WP:NATURAL. Similar to Deadline Hollywood and Business Insider, the common/short name isn't necessarily the better option. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, does not seem to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to other CBR's, per above, argument presented seems to be WP:OFFICIALNAMES which can't be given weight. No evidence provided for WP:NAMECHANGES. DankJae 20:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose [struck as repetition of position]. They have not entirely disclaimed the name "Comic Book Resources", and it is a helpful clarified name for disambiguation and recognizability purposes (WP:NATURAL, given the lack of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status), although most self-published material uses CBR. Their careers page www.cbr.com/careers/ says "Comic Book Resources is the #1 destination for all things comics and pop culture, with a team of passionate fans ...". The www.facebook.com/CBROfficialPage/about_details page says "ComicBookResources.com is the leading pop culture Web site devoted to comic books, graphic novels, ...", and that's still a functioning site link, redirecting to cbr.com. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Best to use the full name and certainly not primary topic for CBR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Move to CBR (website). It doesn't sound like Comic Book Resources is the full name anymore, so it's a bit misleading to use it. Note that we have KFC at, well, KFC, not at Kentucky Fried Chicken, after they officially changed their name. While it's not the primary topic, we shouldn't force an old name on them that they're moving away from for whatever arcane branding reason. SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's all about WP:NATURAL. KFC, Costco, and Microsoft are titled as such because there is no need for disambiguation; when disambiguation is needed, natural disambiguation is always preferred over parenthetical, for instance with American Broadcasting Company, Apple Inc., The Daily Telegraph, Meta Platforms, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am a huge fan of WP:NATURAL, especially for just general topics. But names are a bit different. There needs to be a strong WP:COMMONNAME case / common sense case where you have really weird renames like Prince / "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince". And I'm not sure your examples are on point? All of the Wikipedia titles used in those instances are still actively used names, if lesser ones. I picked KFC because it's pretty similar - they actively stopped writing "Kentucky Fried Chicken" out to say that their name was just KFC now, while ABC still has "American Broadcasting Company" in plenty of documents, etc. The main examples of "Comic Book Resources" still being used appear to be dusty, not-yet-updated parts of their website, which isn't a stirring endorsement it's still a name they're going by. SnowFire (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with SnowFire here. In terms of news coverage (pulling just from sources in the article), it appears that Popverse just uses CBR (1, 2) while The Beat & BleedingCool use "Comic Book Resources" once at the start of an article before switching to CBR (3, 4); all three use CBR in headlines. It appears the 2016 name change was to indicate a shift from a focus on just comics to a focus on pop culture; some of the criticisms of CBR is about that shift & how they're not really a comics outlet anymore. So I think per WP:COMMONNAME CBR (website) makes the most sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  In terms of those examples, you listed one of the articles I did (The Beat #7) and a different Bleeding Cool article (#6) which have the pattern of use original name once before switching to CBR. The Forbes article (#2), the Screen Rant (#4), the MovieWeb (#5) articles all only mention "Comic Book Resources" once throughout the article so not enough of a pattern as these aren't articles focused on CBR (ex: the MovieWeb one is a recap of a CBR tweet). While the archived Twitter (#9) uses a mix of "CBR" & "Comic Book Resources", the current Twitter just uses CBR which speaks to SnowFire's point that things are being transitioned over; the only use of "Comic Book Resources" on Instagram (#8) is the handle itself with description stating The official Instagram home of CBR.con. Only the Inverse (#3) article uses "Comic Book Resources" multiple times & like the MovieWeb article, it is simply recapping a CBR article. But the articles focused on CBR itself (#6 & #7) are using the acronym which I think is the best indication of common use. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  The main purpose of my examples was to refute SnowFire's claim that nobody uses "Comic Book Resources" anymore. But you're not wrong: "CBR" is, without a doubt, the site's most common name. No one is disputing that. But if you think we're supposed to use the most common name for article titles all the time, you are mistaken. Many editors forget that WP:COMMONNAME is merely one of the five WP:CRITERIA outlined at WP:AT. We don't just use the most common name, we use the most common name that is also natural, precise, concise, and consistent. When the most common name for a subject is naturally disambiguated, great. If not, we look at the most common name that is naturally disambiguated; as long as there is a reasonable number of sources that use the alternative name, even if it is not the most widespread choice, it is ideal for us to use that title on Wikipedia. I mentioned ABC and other examples above — really, nobody goes around saying "American Broadcasting Company" or "Meta Platforms", and the articles would have been titled "ABC" and "Meta" if they were the primary topics. But because some sources do use the terms "American Broadcasting Company" and "Meta Platforms", that's how our articles are titled. And finally, we don't care how organizations brand themselves, so whether CBR themselves still use "Comic Book Resources" is irrelevant. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll also bring up Business Insider. In 2021, they changed their name to Insider. However, Insider (website) is not naturally disambiguated, and some sources continued to use its old name. Our article, Business Insider, stayed put at its title despite two RM attempts. Earlier today, the site changed its name back to Business Insider, which I'll admit cracked me up when I accidentally found out when browsing sources for another article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• (de-indent) @InfiniteNexus: To be clear, in this particular case, I'm not claiming nobody (in the sense of Reliable Sources) uses the "old" title of "Comic Book Resources." I fully agree it is used sometimes elsewhere. (There are some other RMs where this is not the case and a proposal is suggesting a form that truly nobody else uses, and they are much more clear-cut IMO!) I'm saying that CBR itself appears to have hard-deprecated the name, rather than merely using multiple names with a Formal Stuffy Name like "Meta Platforms" and a standard "Meta" for short. And those cases usually ask for a little more deference to WP:ABOUTSELF, IMO, if they're explicitly walking away from an old name, and we need a strong COMMONNAME argument to against it. On the example of Business Insider... eh, I don't really see the harm if we'd switched over to Insider (website) during the rename period. This is uncontroversially done for all sorts of short-term-in-retrospect changes - American Airlines Arena became FTX Arena became Miami-Dade Arena became Kaseya Center over the course of just two years or so. Even if that's a cause for waiting a little while to see if the name sticks, it seems that the move to the CBR branding has been underway for a long time. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is correct. I can verify (see disclosure above) that CBR is the name of the website, and that Comic Book Resources is no longer being used in any capacity (save for a careers page that's being updated and a few straggling URLs that need to be adjusted). JonArvedon (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will again stress (and I mean no disrespect to JonArvedon) that Wikipedia's article titling policy does not care how organizations (or individuals) style themselves. The Walt Disney Company consistently capitalizes "the" mid-sentence; we do not. Time (magazine) writes their name in all-caps; we do not. Columbia University's logo includes their full name; we do not. Elon Musk says Twitter is now called X; we do not. The only things we consider are the five CRITERIA, what secondary sources use, and our MoS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  This is not accurate. WP:ABOUTSELF is a guideline that is very commonly invoked and has helped decide RMs before. It is, to be sure, one factor among many, and it can be overruled just like any other guideline when factors conflict, but it is not accurate to say that Wikipedia does not care about individual / organization's preference at all. This is not a matter of "stylization", either, as it appears to be a different name. The origin of the CBR name was clearly Comic Book Resources, but origin can merely be a point of trivia sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment- Is CBR.com not a NATURAL solution? A-la MLB.com. I believe they have only ever had an online presence. -2pou (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Do any sources call it CBR.com? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose not primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as not primary and the present name is more easily recognizable. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to CBR and CBR (website) per WP:NATURAL, as this is not proven to the be the WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and could be unhelpful to readers or in navigation when the full name would better suffice. Not all initialisms are better alternatives. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposer seems to believe that the article title must match the official name, judging from both the proposal itself and subsequent responses. In addition, the proposal falls short of demonstrating that WP:COMMONNAME has changed. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, it needs to be demonstrated that independent reliable sources published after the name change are "routinely" using the new name instead of the previously established name. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2023 (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.

Infobox

@Sariel Xilo: I realize there's no |former_name= parameter in {{Infobox website}}. That's why I said one should probably be proposed and added. But using a footnote as a workaround is just odd and highly unconventional. It's also not essential — the lead already states both the current and former names. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to revert, you can. I just think the former name should be in the infobox. I'll make a suggestion at the template's talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 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: no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, I see no consensus in favor of the proposed move. BD2412 T 16:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Comic Book Resources → CBR (website) – CBR formerly operated as Comic Book Resources. The site is now solely known as CBR. The name has been updated across social channels and relevant areas of the site itself -- see https://www.cbr.com/page/about/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/officialcbr/ https://www.tiktok.com/@officialcbr https://www.facebook.com/CBROfficialPage/ https://www.cbr.com/page/press-kit/. Additional sources using the current name include https://ew.com/gaten-matarazzo-wants-more-deaths-stranger-things-8559966 https://www.ign.com/articles/stranger-things-star-would-like-to-raise-the-stakes-killing-off-more-characters https://deadline.com/2024/02/stranger-things-gaten-matarazzo-change-netflix-series-1235817417/ https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/stranger-things-kill-characters-gaten-matarazzo-too-safe-1235898655/ https://nypost.com/2024/02/07/entertainment/stranger-things-gaten-matarazzo-wants-show-to-kill-more-people-in-season-5/. Even the site's source code was recently updated to not include the alternative name Comic Book Resources. A previous move request from Comic Book Resources to CBR was closed with no consensus, and based on several points made in that discussion, the new request is to move Comic Book Resources to CBR (website). JonArvedon (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• JonArvedon Do you have a connection with this topic? 331dot (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, see declared connection at the top of the talk page. I manage the site, and in the interest of giving readers the most accurate information about the site, it only makes sense to use the current site name (which has been is use for the better part of a decade) rather than a former name. JonArvedon (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you- if you are the managing editor, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure; you should also edit your user page to place a disclosure(that's where I had looked). 331dot (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. JonArvedon (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, please place {{paid|employer=name of employer|client=name of client}} on your user page(User:JonArvedon) 331dot (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Apologies for the confusion! JonArvedon (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Comics has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATURAL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per WP:NATURAL and prior RM argument. Nothing has changed since the last RM that was only 3 months ago. I think it would also be a bad precedent to allow an employee of the site to dictate what the article title is against Wikipedia policy over concerns of inherent bias. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have a mild form of COI (I run a small publishing house that would obviously like more coverage in CBR) so I won't !vote, but I will tell you that in online discussion I commonly see "CBR", probably more than the old name at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am aware of its usage in online chatter, which often use short hand names for subjects. Wikipedia policy should be upheld above all other instances. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  I just don't see the argument for WP:NATURAL over WP:NAMECHANGES since RS are consistently using CBR over Comic Book Resources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's article titles are based on criteria such as recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency. Wikipedia:Article titles#Concision is clear. For Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistent titling, I'd point to IGN, which is similarly an article for an entertainment site that uses its acronym as that's what it's best known as. The previous RM lacked Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision, hence the new RM with "(website)." There are numerous mentions of RS using CBR, so Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names seems evident. Re: Wikipedia:Article titles#Natural disambiguation, if the argument is this is "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for," I'd argue most anyone looking for information on the site formerly known as Comic Book Resources would be more likely to search CBR before typing out the old name just based on typical search behavior. JonArvedon (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support (Expanding what I said in the last RM) Updating the name change is inline with WP:NAMECHANGES since "reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name". After it was relaunched in 2016, news coverage of the outlet has fairly consistently called it CBR (see sources used in Comic Book Resources#Firings and staff turmoil). I don't think WP:NATURAL is a concern here; that policy states: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title". Most RS use CBR as the common name; they sometimes use Comic Book Resources but mostly in the past tense (for example, Popverse: "CBR — formerly Comic Book Resources, with the name change occurring in August 2016 as the site sought to broaden its focus beyond comic books"). I think continuing to call it Comic Book Resources is more ambiguous & misleading on the scope of the website than CBR; the website in its post-2016 form no longer focuses on just comics (a major criticism of the website in RS has been that shift from comics coverage to broader pop culture & clickbait). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Websites & WikiProject Internet culture have been notified of this discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. Most of the opposes on the previous RM were about it not being the primary topic for CBR, which I agree with, but I fully support a move to CBR (website). Nothing on the current website indicates that CBR stands for Comic Book Resources, the website hasn't focused on solely comic books for a decade, and I've haven't heard or seen anyone recently refer to it as anything other than CBR or CBR.com for years other than in the blurb that Google uses above links to the site (which it probably sources from Wikipedia). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL. Although Comic Book Resources is not the most common name, it is still preferable to CBR because (1) it does not require additional disambiguation in parentheses, and (2) sources continue to use Comic Book Resources. NATURAL specifically notes that the most natural name [may not be] as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. As long as there are sources (see links in the previous RM) that continue to use the extended form, we should continue using it even if the most common name is CBR. See American Broadcasting Company, despite every other TV network located at their abbreviated names (NBC, CNN, BBC, HBO, CBS, PBS, NPR). Similarly, we prefer Meta Platforms over Meta (company), Nike, Inc. over Nike (company), Twitter over X (social network), etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  If we're talking sources that mention the site, then it's worth noting that even Screen Rant's Wikipedia page refers to the site as CBR. JonArvedon (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  You can't use other Wikipedia pages as reference, nor for arguments in page moves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NATURAL, also "CBR" still clearly stands for that even if they don't use it anymore. Unless the site is prominent enough to be the primary topic for CBR, its alternate name should be used. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Every acronym or initialism stands for something. IGN stands for Imagine Games Network, but IGN doesn't face the same issue for its own article. JonArvedon (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Because IGN is not as commonly referred to as "Imagine Games Network" anymore, unlike "Comic Book Resources" still being commonly used for "CBR", same as "HBO" being more commonly used than "Home Box Office" and why "EW" is not used for "Entertainment Weekly", etc. "CBR (website)" still being a redirect here aids in navigation for readers looking for the website and not wanting to type out the full name it stands for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support per previous RM and per WP:NAMECHANGES. I don't understand the hesitance about honoring a name change of the kind that would be 100% uncontroversial anywhere else. We rename stadiums that are far better known under their old titles promptly, say. Additionally, the fact that an employee politely reached out makes the case better, not worse - this isn't a problem, this is the corporate equivalent of "hey my Wikipedia article is out of date." The sources make very clear that CBR just goes by CBR now and this has been true for some time, and tons of recent external sources use "CBR". What's the problem? This would be like insisting on moving KFC to Kentucky Fried Chicken because that title is still known, even though they go by KFC now. SnowFire (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is that those are unambiguous and don't require parenthetical disambiguation. Compare this to something like American Broadcasting Company and Agence France-Presse, since just "ABC" and "AFP" are ambiguous — despite them rarely, if ever, being referred to by their expanded forms. WP:NATURAL always trumps other naming conventions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Would there be any ambiguity to CBR.com? I'm not completely opposed to that. The main point of the request is that Comic Book Resources is not the name of the brand, and since the previous RM for just CBR was denied, I submitted the new one for CBR (website) as a proposed compromise. JonArvedon (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am a huge fan of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, but that only applies when both names are in some sense "valid". "Comic Book Resources" is where the name CBR comes from, yes, but it is no longer an accurate name per the request of the CBR employee and their own website not including the name anymore. So the standard for using it is higher.

  I understand that people are different from corporations, but let's use a human example anyway. ND Stevenson's name obviously comes from their first name. But he explicitly changed his name, so the "origin" name isn't relevant - even if people were still using it, we'd have a strong reason to go with just the new initials. This isn't unique to transgender people, either. A friend of my father's went by the name "LC" as a shortening of their first & middle name, and would be quite annoyed / insulted if spoken to by their OG name - "Laurie" (one of those Southern male names that became more female-associated later), which he really didn't like. If he was Wikipedia-notable (in reality, he wasn't, of course), ABOUTSELF would suggest using "LC" without a really, really strong argument otherwise. Basically, switching to initials doesn't mean that the old name is just as valid. It might mean that (in the case of ABC and the like), but sometimes it's a clean break, and we don't have to hypothesize in this case because a CBR employee has outright told us it's a clean break. So... there it is. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, we're still using Kanye West and not Ye (artist), despite countless RMs. Things are more complicated when it comes to transgender people, and there are separate guidelines that govern that, which I'm not going to go into as they're not relevant here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NATURAL is dependent on reliable sources using the alt name on regular basis and suggests these sources show a preference for the older name over the newer name; even then, it's not a requirement to use the alt (or older) name (policy says "is sometimes preferred"). The reliable sources post-2016 use CBR fairly consistently and it marks a clear delineation in the quality of CBR (lots of Wiki project guides highlight concerns with reliability of CBR post-2016). Updating the article name follows WP:NAMECHANGES: "common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources." The argument for NATURAL over NAMECHANGES doesn't make much sense for this article especially with "CBR" fitting things like recognizability, precision, concision outlined in WP:CRITERIA. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  First of all, I will say that it is much more difficult to determine the COMMONNAME of CBR than other sites, considering it is a small publication. It is therefore difficult to argue which name "sources" use "on a regular basis" if they rarely mention CBR in the first place. Among the few sources that we do have, plenty still use the extended name, which means it is still common. Not necessarily the most common, but common enough to satisfy our naming conventions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  A similar situation to Twitter. If sources still use Twitter, even occasionally, it still makes sense to use the former name since it also acts as a natural dab. Otherwise, it would have to be X (social) or something along those lines. That is the main reason why the move at Talk:Twitter has not been successful. Same with Quebec. The term could refer to the state or the city, therefore, Quebec has ben established for the state but Quebec City for the city otherwise its Quebec (city). I assume a local in Quebec (province), when they hear that word, it likely means the city.

  Likewise, the reason why sidewalk is used is because of the fact that the term pavement could also refer to the road surface and other stuff. Therefore, it would avoid having to disambiguate that term with pavement (sidewalk), pavement (for pedestrians), etc, which is the same reason why American English is used as that term is unambiguaios.

  In short, natural disambiguation is preferred, but not mandatory. Best case is to rename this to just CBR. JuniperChill (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  If you're suggesting "just CBR" as in CBR, it was determined in the previous RM that this isn't the primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say we always use the personal term. Kanye is a case where there's a metric ton of COMMONNAME evidence of reliable sources continuing to call him "Kanye West." If reliable sources had all switched over to calling him "Ye", his article would have moved. Reliable sources seem to have switched to calling this outlet "CBR" and there's far fewer secondary sources discussing the matter in the first place than an A-list celebrity like Kanye, so these aren't equivalent cases. SnowFire (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Video games have been notified of this discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support – I'm unimpressed by the concern of the disambiguator, as this is still the only website/publication with this name. It's still clear and concise, and Comic Book Resources will continue to redirect. The rebranding is complete, I can't argue against that. The name request change was polite and very reasonable. It's fine, I guess this is just their name now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Same case with IGN. Neocorelight (Talk) 00:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: there is a similar case with Twitter, renamed as X. That social network is way bigger than this niche comic book page, and the case was seen by way more users. There have been several similar proposals to make such a rename here, and none of them worked. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comic Book Resources has been rebranding itself for much longer than Twitter has, and unlike the Twitter situation it's not caused by the whims of one billionaire. I don't think the comparison is that helpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also important to flag that as a niche news outlet, it hasn't been a focused "comic book page" since it was sold in 2016; the rebrand to CBR was part of the shift to general pop culture news. Editors & readers assuming the outlet's focus is still comics is part of the confusion that occurs with the article being named "Comic Book Resources". Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's not Wikipedia's problem to solve. It's not our job to accommodate the companies that we cover, or to facilitate their branding efforts. You can say the same for similar outlets like ComicBook.com (not just comic books) and Screen Rant (not just movies and TV). Twitter and Kanye West are just two examples; there are lots and lots more, some of which directly contradict the branding guidelines preferred by the organization. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  My point has consistently been that they've successfully rebranded to CBR (as seen in RS) & "Comic Book Resources" is no longer the natural name (so meeting the name changes policy). The adherence to the older name by some editors adds to reader confusion. But I get at this point we're unlikely to convince each other. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Article titles#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. In my experience, RS have consistently adopted the acronym, and I rarely if ever see the spelled-out form "Comic Book Resources". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per InfiniteNexus. – Hilst [talk] 14:08, 7 March 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.