This paper presents key insights from the analysis of a language debate in Cyprus, triggered when a number of individuals and groups refused to endorse the standardisation of the orthography of place names and the argumentation through which it was supported. The paper is based on a collection of newspaper texts and related documents and is informed by interviews with participants on either side of the debate. Drawing from work on language ideologies and orthography debates (e.g. Blommaert 1999; Kroskrity 2000; Schieffelin et al. 1998; Johnson 2005; Sebba 2007), this paper aims to make three key arguments. Firstly, language planning in this case did not measure up against changing sociolinguistic realities, as the standardisation committee disregarded or rejected changes in current practices and pluralist language ideologies that had been gaining ground, both in the academia and in lay perceptions. Secondly, the argumentation the committee developed so as to support its decisions, together with its negative connotations for the local dialect, played a major role in the way the standardisation project was perceived and responded to. Thirdly, the scepticism and scorn the standardisation was greeted with during its implementation stage can be attributed, partially, to specific linguistic choices by policy makers carrying negative indexicalities, which were then projected onto their users and the project (Irvine and Gal 2000). The paper concludes with some implications for language policy and planning practice and research.