Talk:Door-knocking prank

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knock down ginger → Ding dong ditchDing dong ditch – The majority of English speakers use the term 'Ding dong ditch'. I and many other editors have yet to see anyone use 'Knock down ginger' as a common name. BelowFlames (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The consensus title for this article, per a 2023 RM, is Knock, knock, ginger. It was moved to Knock down ginger without discussion last year. Should the proposed title Ding dong ditch not find consensus, the article should be moved back to Knock, knock, ginger. 162 etc. (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, seems like an WP:ENGVAR thing to me. 162 etc. (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some move, there's two names here in different countries, and I don't know if one stands out over the other. Ngrams here.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. "Ding dong ditch" does genuinely seem to be a bit more of the WP:COMMONNAME. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is one of those cases where the names for this are so regional that readers from outside of that region will have no idea this articel is about, it seems that a descriptive name like doorbell ringing prank would be best—blindlynx 15:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh, I'd also Support a descriptive name like "Doorbell ringing prank". Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose an invented descriptive title that is not in use and that readers are unlikely to search for. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    the issue is that there is basically no MOS:COMMONALITY here so no matter what we pick it's going to be weird for the majority of readers—blindlynx 01:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree about what the problem is but I disagree about the solution. Since there is no commonly used term across national varieties, we're left with the general guidance at ENGVAR, WP:TITLEVAR, and MOS:RETAIN which all say that any national variety is acceptable and not to change a stable title solely to change or avoid a national variety. My reading of the guidance on descriptive titles (at, e.g., WP:NDESC) in combination with ENGVAR and general article title guidance is that we should not invent a novel descriptive title unless no common name exists [in any variety of English]. If there's evidence that there is a common description used across varieties then *maybe* that would be acceptable but my understanding is that this would be contrary to guidelines and usual practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title applies here specifically that there is no acceptable set name for a topic—blindlynx 15:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell the current name is the common name in British English.[1][2] Google Ngram has limitations but I've not seen any evidence to the contrary, just assertions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not questioning that rather saying that non-British-english speakers will have no idea what 'Knock down ginger' means—blindlynx 23:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. The Google Ngram show that both are in widespread use and when adjusting to look at American vs. British English we see that the difference is entirely down to national variety of English used. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:ENGVAR, and per Myceteae. -- AxG / ✉  21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:ENGVAR

The original name should be used. It originated in Cornwall so use the Cornish name.

Reminds me of the Sega Megadrive/Genesis arguement though it is clearly the Megadrive! ~2025-38716-48 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-38716-48 I have WP:REFACTORed your contribution to make sure it is part of the RM discussion. (Special:Diff/1325863197) Feel free to revert or let me know if this was in error. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the original title that is Knock, knock, gingerKnock, knock, ginger as part of reverting the uncaught undiscussed move, described by 162 etc.. I was going to wait to close this discussion but felt the need to comment due to the clear opposition to the proposed title for ENGVAR reasons. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Games and WikiProject Cornwall have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nice regional breakdown for the UK here.  Tewdar  09:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. What the hell is Ding dong ditch? If by The majority of English speakers use the term 'Ding dong ditch' you mean that we should use the name that Americans use then that is a fundamental change in Wikipedia that has never been sanctioned by a majority of editors (and hopefully never will be). This is English[-language] Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. I and many other editors have yet to see anyone use 'Knock down ginger' as a common name. I'm guessing that's because you're not from the UK. Personally, I've never even heard of Ding dong ditch! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 to the alternative, as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Knock down ginger → Knock, knock, gingerKnock, knock, ginger – WP:STABLE. "Knock, knock, ginger" or similar has been the title of this article since 2008. This was recently reaffirmed in a 2023 RM. The title was changed to "Knock down ginger" last year with no discussion. Another RM in 2025 recommending "Ding dong ditch" was shot down on the basis of WP:ENGVAR.

It seems clear that this topic can be known in different regions under different names, and any one name is no more common or accurate than another. With that in mind, the best title is the one that was stable for 16+ years. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. HurricaneZeta^C 18:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add As a result of the discussion, an alternative title, Door-knocking prank, has emerged as a plausible alternative. I urge interested editors to voice support or opposition to that one instead. 162 etc. (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as reversion of an undiscussed move. Pinging everyone from the previous RM: @BelowFlames, @Ortizesp, @Paintspot, @Blindlynx, @Myceteae, @AxG, @~2025-38716-48, @Tewdar, and @Necrothesp. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 22:56, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As much as I hate the name, this was a undiscussed move that does deserve a reversion due to contention. BelowFlames (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original 2008 move which established the "knock knock ginger" naming was also undiscussed. The subsequent move request was purely on a minor punctuation and capitalisation question, not the name overall, so doesn't establish a precedent that the name "knock knock ginger" was accepted. So your "procedural" reasons for supporting have no merit, particularly when the proposed name isn't in any way the common name compared to others.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the 2008 move. BelowFlames (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that Knock, knock, ginger is the more common name in the UK, or is otherwise the better title? I understand the rationale here but this title received no support in the recent, well-attended RM except for a couple editors suggesting it on these same grounds (WP:STABLE). I agree that the undiscussed move was improper but if no one affirmatively supports Knock, knock, ginger as the best title on the merits then returning to this title is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor in the above RM posted a link breaking down usage in the UK. This image from said link drives home the point that all of these words are highly regional and there is no one true "common name". 162 etc. (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is helpful. I had missed this as it was shared late in the discussion. The full article does indeed support the conclusion that there is no true common name in the UK. But it also shows that the current title, Knock down ginger, is the most common name and is ≈6x more common than Knock, knock, ginger. If anything, these results give more support to Ding dong ditch than Knock, knock, ginger. The only variants I can find support for via Google Ngram are knock and run, knock down ginger, and ding dong ditch.[3] (Also chappie[4] which has other meanings.) I suspect some of the difficulty in finding knock, knock, ginger has to do with variations in the use of commas and limitations on searching for commas in Google Ngram. But if it's true that only 4% of Britons use this term then it is expected to be rare in print. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This concept has many different names, but "knock knock ginger" is not one of them. Overall, pursuant to the WP:COMMONNAME policy, it absolutely should not go to the proposed title, which isn't widely used anywhere. Per ngrams it's a wash between the current name and "ding dong ditch", but I think it's clear that's an EMGVAR issue. Per policy, we should default to the first non-stub name which is the current one, knock down ginger. It has also been stable at the current and original name for over a year now, so if it's no consensus then we definitely shouldn't move it. This request seems to lack any policy basis.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I linked WP:STABLE in the nom, but really I should have linked the more specific WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."

  Knock, knock, ginger was in fact stable for a long time, and this move in 2024, IMO, was done with no good reason, considering all the WP:ENGVAR names we've already discussed. I'll note again that this undiscussed move was made despite an RM in 2023, thus violating WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was moved because it was at a name nobody uses. While there isn't a single clear WP:COMMONNAME, there are several names that are vastly more common than "knock knock ginger". And "knock down ginger" - a widely used name - is sufficiently similar to that, that it shouldn't even be controversial from an ENGVAR perspective. It's true there was a STABLEVERSION in 2024, but that was over a year ago so this is clearly the STABLEVERSION now, importantly backed up by the advantage that this is the original non-stub name, something we're told to use if there isn't clarity. I'm baffled by the motivation of this RM – nobody supporting it thinks the proposed name is actually a good name or compliant with WP:AT and it's being proposed entirely for WP:Wikilawyering reasons that don't even stand up to scrutiny. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment i'm still of the mind that this needs a descriptive name not one that's only recognizable in the region it's used—blindlynx 22:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be in favour of this as well. I'm reminded of the Dockworker article. That one was at Stevedore as a stable title (a British English word mostly unrecognizable to North Americans.) Meanwhile, Longshoreman is essentially never used in the UK. A 2023 RM then saw strong consensus for "dockworker", which is recognizable to both North American and British speakers. 162 etc. (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be opposed in principle to a descriptive name, but the flaw I see in it at present is that there isn't really any element of this that lends its self to commonality. It was suggested above that we call the page "Doorbell ringing prank", but that suffers from the obvious flaw that in the UK variants (knock down ginger and the version I grew up with, knock and run, among others) the game isn't referred to in terms of ringing doorbells. The keyword is knock. As such, I don't think "doorbell ringing prank" would accurately describe this in a way that is clearly WP:RECOGNIZEable across the world. But presumably in the US, it's the other way around, they wouldn't recognise it if it was phrased in terms of knocking.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be in favour or Door-knocking prank, which was recently used in headlines by both North American (ABC, Winnipeg Free Press) and British (Express) sources. 162 etc. (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With proof of usage by those sources, I'd favor that name as well. Now it's no longer an invented descriptive title. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I'd be fine with this too, thanks for the research.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  works for me—blindlynx 00:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced 'doorbell-ringing prank' is unrecognizable to British readers. I easily found British sources using this description including The Guardian, Independent, and The Sun. I also found this phrase in Alarabiya English and the simpler phase 'doorbell prank' in The Hindustan Times. This strikes me as an adequate description even if it lacks the keyword 'knock'. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The stevedore thing isn't really equivalent. The problem there was that, while "stevedore" is indeed used in British English, it is used for something much more specific than just a generic dockworker as it is in American English. The same word therefore has two different meanings in two different varieties of English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Doorbell-ringing prank or Door-knocking prank as appropriate descriptive titles. I have a slight preference for Doorbell-ringing prank. The lack of a common international name, widely varying usage in British English, and history of disagreement about an article title warrant the use of a descriptive title here. I strongly oppose Knock, knock, ginger for reasons outlined in my earlier comments and by Amakuru. The procedural basis for that proposal has been refuted and, regardless, provided a poor rationale for using an article title that no one seems to actually support on the merits. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support While there are some issues, This satisfies everyone without picking a leader. BelowFlames (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Either move as proposed or keep the current name. Both are used. But certainly should not be moved to any other title per ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that per WP:ENGVAR, "For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles." A title such as Door-knocking prank appears to satisfy this better than the current title or the originally proposed title. 162 etc. (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ✓Agreed. Although I initially resisted the idea, as I have come to understand the situation better I am convinced that a descriptive title is best. Arbitrarily selecting a name that is used by a minority of BrE speakers and that is unheard of elsewhere is bad practice. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]