They follow their own MoS. We follow ours. Ours is not business based but based exclusively on the most common name principle.
Well, not exclusively. There are quite a few subject areas where Wikipedia quite explicitly spells out that something other than the "most common name" is the naming convention in that particular case.
Television and radio stations in North America, for example, are required by policy to be titled by their official W---, K---, C--- or X---- callsigns, even though a strict application of "most common name" would require that they be titled with things like "Fox 25", "CTV Toronto" or "The Beat 94.5".
It's quite common to disambiguate people with the same first name and last name by adding a middle name to the title even if that middle name isn't in particularly common use. (And it would be impossible or excessively confusing, in some cases, to use another point of disambiguation -- frex, there's been more than one Canadian politician named Angus Macdonald, so the typical dab format, "Angus Macdonald (Canadian politician)", would *still* have to be a dab page.)
It's patently obvious that in general day-to-day use, Laura Schlessinger and Phil McGraw are *vastly* more commonly referred to to as "Dr. Laura" and "Dr. Phil" than by their full names, and yet their articles are located at their full names.
We use Inuit rather than Eskimo, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints rather than Mormon Church, on the stated grounds that "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive".
And a very real case could be made that in day-to-day English conversational usage, "Holland" is still technically a more common name for the country than "the Netherlands", but for obvious reasons nobody who valued their reputation as a Wikipedia editor would even *think* of suggesting anything other than "the Netherlands" as that article's title.
And on and so forth. Most common name is not an inviolable rule; it's a *guideline*, and one which is already *not* regarded as the final word in every single situation.
There are already a *lot* of circumstances in which other considerations trump "most common name", so can we *please* stop pretending that "Côte d'Ivoire" somehow represents some unprecedented blasphemy against Wikipedia's Great Unbreakable Commandment?
Craig