Talk:World Wildlife Fund

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WWF which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Source verification: Assisi meeting 1986

The section describing the Assisi meeting in 1986 goes beyond the cited source, especially in terms of the involvment of Prince Philip, the name of the declarations, and the interpretation of their spiritual significance. While what is written is historically accurate, the citation is technically insufficient. I have published research that covers this event (see Lund, A.J., "Greening the Church Year: A History of the Season of Creation." Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology 79, no. 2 (2025): 144–61, doi:10.1080/0039338X.2025.2587112, pp. 147-148), but as the author, I would prefer if another editor reviews this, the sources I refer to, or suggest other independent sources to ensure editorial neutrality. TheAkselJ (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2026

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Agent 007 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

---

World Wide Fund for Nature → World Wildlife Fund – In English, thanks to the name of the organization remaining World Wildlife Fund in the U.S. and Canada, this is far more common. It is also historically more common since it was its original name and the "World Wide Fund for Nature" name was quickly abandoned for just the abbreviation (look at the global website, https://wwf.panda.org/, where the full name cannot be found anywhere vs. the North America website, https://www.worldwildlife.org/, which still says "World Wildlife Fund"). ~2026-26794-42 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Previously discussed in 2006, see here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. The shorter title is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, more WP:CONCISE, and more universal (MOS:COMMONALITY). Looking at WWF in the news, sources almost invariably use "World Wildlife Fund" or "WWF". I easily found usage of the short name form the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, and the Australian Broadcasting Company. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per Myceteae🍄‍🟫. Mainly on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. Significantly more common than the official name, which honestly I wasn't even aware of. I saw the first part of the move and thought to myself that I don't know what that is, and then had a moment of confusion when I saw the proposed title. I reckon many readers have a similar experience. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I, too was unaware of the long name and had the same momentary puzzlement upon seeing this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Myceteae's excellent breakdown of current media coverage. DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 03:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Support clearly the name everyone knows the organization by. The Adventures of the Not So Venerable Mr. Siggs (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2026 (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.