WP:COMMONNAME settles article titles bluntly: it directs editors to whatever name reliable sources use most often for a subject, regardless of what the subject calls itself. The guideline overrides a press release, a rebrand, and a legal filing all at once. A subject doesn't get a vote on its own headline — the coverage does.
Changing a title runs through a process called a requested move. Anyone can propose one on the article's talk page, and if nobody objects within a few days, an editor moves the page and that's the end of it. If someone does object, the request opens into a discussion that typically runs a week, sometimes longer if it gets relisted. Editors weigh in with evidence — search results, headline counts, the style used by major outlets — and an uninvolved editor closes the discussion by reading the arguments rather than counting votes. A show of hands from ten employees of the subject carries the same weight as one, unless it comes with sources.
A software company we worked with dropped "Technologies" from its legal name the week it closed a funding round, and asked us to file the same change on Wikipedia that same afternoon. We opened the discussion anyway, expecting the obvious: trade press still used the old, longer name in every headline that ran that quarter, because that's what their editors had been writing for three years and nobody had told them otherwise. The request closed as "not moved," with the closing editor noting, correctly, that a company's own announcement is not evidence of how sources refer to it. We filed again five months later, after two acquisitions and a product launch had run the shorter name through outlet after outlet. That request took four days and closed unopposed.
A press release describes what a company wants to be called. Search results describe what it is called.
The delay has nothing to do with Wikipedia moving slowly. The title sits downstream of the coverage. Filing a requested move on the day of a rebrand announcement asks volunteer editors to act on a company's own word before anyone independent has repeated it. Filing one after the trade press, and then the wire services, have settled into the new name costs nothing but the wait — and it closes in days instead of dragging through relist after relist while employees restate an argument the sources haven't backed up yet.
The same principle holds below the level of a full rebrand. A subject who goes by a stage name, a shortened surname, or an initialism has no more say over the article title than a company does — the deciding vote belongs to whichever version shows up across the sources an editor can actually check. Ask what the coverage calls the subject before asking what the subject wants to be called, and the title mostly settles itself.
