points by rickdeckard 17 hours ago | 0 comments
I guess the "Maps" Team follows a different policy than the "Earth" team...
Although there is also no definition of "common usage". A new name might already qualify if the local government adjacent to this landmark announces to only use this new name from now on.
Reading the article, I assume this would cause the new name to be immediately shown in brackets next to the old name, or am I missing something?
[–] mapontosevenths 16 hours ago
[–] lopis 15 hours ago
The moment the president of the US renamed those bodies of water, it became commonly used in all sort of publications since then. It fits their description, no matter how silly.
[–] croon 15 hours ago
[Citation needed]
Yes, a lot of publications reported on the presidents action. I do not have the same experience as you that there's widespread use of the alternative name outside of this context.
[–] klrefg 9 hours ago
It’s commonly used to illustrate how absurd are some of the things the US government is doing. It’s not commonly used to refer to the actual bodies of water.
[–] rickdeckard 15 hours ago
Don't know why you are downvoted, that's how the whole article still can be interpreted.
The only change I can read from it, is that they don't need to apply a renaming from Day#1
Common usage is defined in the article as the widespread name used by the local people to refer to it.