Talk:CNN#Rfc

:The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

----

:CNN → {{no redirect|Cable News Network}} – On Wikipedia, we try to avoid acronyms as much as possible (for example, we use Federal Bureau of Investigation instead of FBI, National Basketball Association instead of NBA, Louisiana State University instead of LSU, etc). Therefore, it would be strange to do "CNN" over "Cable News Network". Vanleos (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Not disrespected the move request, but it appears that "CNN" is commonly used name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Even within the network itself, they almost never called CNN "Cable News Network" unless they use the name for legal purposes, implied that CNN also avaliable in satellite dishes worldwide and even avaliable terrestrially in many countries as "free-to-air" channel. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose "CNN" is so common that I'm not sure folks know what it stands for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per WP:ACROTITLE: {{tqq|In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.}} and per Objective3000 CNN is so much more common ([https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=CNN%2CCable+News+Network&year_start=1960&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false ngrams] (will have some false positives for other CNNs but not very many) it is likely there are readers who don't what Cable News Network is (which also has consistently been declining in ngrams since 1992). The examples given in nom are much more commonly referred to by their full name than CNN is. Skynxnex (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name (recognizability) and consistency with other broadcast networks. NBC, CBS, MTV, BBC, HBO, and PBS are among the many, many examples. Exceptions like Canadian Broadcasting Company and Australian Broadcasting Company mainly occur where disambiguation is necessary. Even in such cases, sometimes another disambiguator is used when the initialism is considered far more recognizable, i.e. ITV (TV network). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Myceteae, did you read the examples I provided above? How many people say "National Basketball Association" over NBA? How many people say "Federal Bureau of Investigation" over FBI? Vanleos (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::My point is, Wikipedia uses those names, despite them not being common. Vanleos (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::A google search for the term "Cable News Network" returns mostly auto-generated CNN business profiles (such as [https://www.fcc.gov/document/cable-news-network-inc FCC] and [https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0198425D:US Bloomberg] pages). "National Basketball Association" returns dozens of pages of relevant, mostly official, NBA-related sites.
• :::CNN themselves minimally use the non-abbreviated form, which in my opinion, further supports that CNN is the common name used by both the organization and the public. On the other hand, NBA regularly uses their non-abbreviated form in materials and branding, therefore it is recognizable. Tvfunhouse (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I did consider the other examples and I agree with what Tvfunhouse and others have said. Yes, NBA and FBI are more commonly abbreviated than not. However, their full names are {{em|sufficiently}} common that they easily satisfy the Recognizability criterion: {{tq|The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.}} (See: WP:CRITERIA section of Wikipedia:Article titles policy.) This is not the case with CNN, whose full name is almost never used and is likely unfamiliar even to millions of people who watch it every day.
• ::Article title decisions rarely–if ever–hinge on a single fact or policy. "CNN" is better than "Cable News Network" on all five article title CRITERIA. The guidance at MOS:ACROTITLE aligns with the general policies and guidelines and covers their specific application to acronyms (including initialisms). As Skynxnex has already quoted, the key directive here is ({{em|emphasis}} added): {{tq|if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to {{em|only}} recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.}} The issue here is not only that CNN is the common name, it is the {{em|only}} name most readers are likely to recognize. "Cable News Network" will confuse or surprise most readers, whereas Federal Bureau of Investigations, National Basketball Association, and the full names of most universities are recognizable and easily understood even if people most often abbreviate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Long-standing WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, the long name isn't commonly used. DankJae 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. —theMainLogan (t•c) 02:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:ACROTITLE, its specification in the lead seems sufficient in this context. Tvfunhouse (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close – See NBC, CBS, HBO, PBS, NPR, BBC, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)