This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: #1day1woman (2025) / Black women (2025) This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red #1day1woman initiative in 2025 Black women edit-a-thon in February 2025 London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

The organization's name is stylized in its materials as all lowercase formatting "the nia project".

It's written this way in their own materials and when the article was made it complied with this styling.

This has been changed in the article, and I'm not sure why that is the case. If someone knows differently please give details in the article. Nayyn (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nia (charity) → The Nia Project – A more common name for the organization is "The Nia Project" any cited references did not mention its name as "Nia (charity)". It's an organization, so instead of Nia (organization) or The Nia Project that is the name widely mentioned in mostly cited sources, current name is inappropriate.

Cited References mentioned name for the organization as:

• [2] The Nia Project
• [3] The nia project
• [4] Nia project
• [5] The Nia Project by The Guardian
• [9] Organization nia by TIME. 𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk} 23:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move

@MPian Please once again look at how the organization describes themselves, not external sources. You have refused to engage with previous arguments regarding this issue,

you have not justified a clear rationale for moving this page and you have not assumed good faith here. Any move should be a conversation, and repeating the same arguments without engaging in the conversation does not advance them any further.

To reiterate here,

The Organsation is very clear in their source materials they describe themselves alternatively as "the nia project" or very frequently "nia". Lowercase. Because the organisation's name is unusually styled, it is subject to a lot of misrepresentation in the media, hence your cited sources of The Guardian and Time, which use editorial conventions are inaccurate. By changing the Wiki page you want to do essentially the same thing, by abiding by some grammatical convention, it would essentially misrepresent the organisation. The Wikipedia page should be authoritative.

As Wikipedia does not like using lowercase for article names, the nia project is not a suitable name. Your suggestion, The Nia Project is additionally unsuitable as this is not how the organisation defines itself.

Your additional suggestion, Nia (Organization) is not appropriate as it refers to an org in the UK where this language is not used. Nia (organsation) would be suitable, however it is less precise terminology when trying to abide by MOS:PRECISION. Charity was chosen as this org is a Charitable organisation and this terminology is more descriptive, widely used in the UK and shorter than a more general Organisation.

Wikipedia does not have a MOS naming convention that would suggest charity is an inappropriate definer CAT:NAME

As there is a Project NIA on Wikipedia already, the decision was made to go with nia (charity) as it captures both the nia project and the use of nia on its own. The subjective (charity) already has wide use on Wikipedia especially in the UK context, where this charity operates. See Mind (charity) Samaritans (charity) Mermaids (charity) Gingerbread (charity)....

Please be mindful of the geographic context where this organisation operates and the importance of being precise with the terminology. Nayyn (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn I didn't refused to engage in discussions; instead, you ignored my questions when I said all cited sources mentioned the name as The Nia Project or Nia Project and I asked what about changing name to (The Nia Project or Nia project) you were active, but you didn't reply. Then I filed this move discussion, but you considered it frustrating. First you claimed, "This is the organisation's proper name in their documentation, in their public materials, and on companies house, etc"?. That was incorrect regarding the page title. The organization itself or any cited sources didn't mention Nia (charity) when all sources clearly mentioned the name as Nia project, The Nia project and TIME mentioned organisation as Nia organization. So per Verifiability and COMMANNAMES this move discussion is appropriate. 𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk} 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your first engagement on the talk page, you assumed my edits as "disruptive" not assume good faith.

You also missed something from WP:COMMANNAME that said "It generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)." I've already discussed all sources treated the name for the organisation differently.

You said Nia (organisation) would be okay for you? Instead of Nia Project or The Nia project ignoring all cited sources. You've mentioned (Mind (charity) Samaritans (charity) Mermaids (charity) Gingerbread (charity)), I've read cited sources on these pages any source didn't mention the name of these organisations as The Mind Project, Smaritans Project, etc. So here Nia (organisation) is a different case. 𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk} 21:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: According to Verifiability in cited sources and COMMANNAMES. 𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk} 21:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Disruptive edits are those such as the page move where WP:BEFORE was not adhered to. The example being when the page was moved to Nia (Organization). If WP:BeforeMoving was taken into account it would have been clear that the definer (Organization) was not an appropriate to add to the page name due to the geography of the organisation.

  In regards to the argument about common names, the organisation is simply called nia in many sources-- primarily their own website, but also published reliable sources elsewhere. What is more verifiable than the organisations own website? The organisation is called nia in many sources and it is appropriately defined as a charity in accordance to MOS:PRECISION as it is invariably called nia and the nia project. Calling the title nia does not exclude nia project. There can be a redirect to the nia project, but nia (charity) is the shorter name. Charity is an appropriate definition as it refers to an organisation. Using all capital letters as The Nia Project in the page name would be inaccurate, because the organisation does not name themselves that way. They use only lowercase letters.

  Own website: nia runs services for women and girls who have been subjected to sexual and domestic violence and abuse, including prostitution.

  Newham council: Nia is run for women and children by women, providing services developed in consultation...

  Local village network: nia: Delivering cutting edge services to end violence against women and children.

  The Guardian: Karen Ingala Smith is chief executive of Nia (niaendingviolence.org.uk), a London-based charity championing an integrated approach to addressing all forms of men’s violence against women and girls

  There are many pages that describe it as nia as there are the nia project. nia is the common name of the organisation. It is verifiable. Nayyn (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for wider discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:NATURAL if for no other reason Red Slash 17:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]