Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Jruderman What evidence do you have that it is more common? Being 1 letter shorter is not very much. Could this be an WP:ENGVAR situation? Bensci54 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Bensci54. I don't see a strong reason to change the name. The difference is minor, and I'm not convinced it's more commonly used. Waqar💬 16:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stable version of the article also references a Douglas Adams passage which specifically uses "somebody else's problem". 162 etc. (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw I'm also trying to move the page from Wikipedia to Wiktionary at the same time. This is causing a bit of a mess so I'll slow down on the move-to-Wiktionary part. Sorry for the confusion. Jruderman (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 13 August 2024" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 13 August 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 August 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 13 August 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 August 2024

– why Example (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 13 August 2024

– why Example (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 73 discussions have been relisted.

August 13, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Artms → ARTMS – Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. As well, under MOS:BIOEXCEPT and MOS:IDENTITY, living subjects of articles are entitled to exceptional stylization if groups clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the same exceptional style. When read in the context of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is probably necessarily compelled to use the exceptional style in such situations. A Google News search [1] does not yield any results which do not stylize the group as ARTMS. Included in the articles which populate in the search results for me are NME, allkpop, Billboard, Hindustan Times, Korea JoongAng Daily, ABS-CBN News, Pop Matters. Outside of Google News, sites like Sputnik Music which reviewed their debut album earlier this year all took care to stylize the group's name as ARTMS. The Korean language edition of Wikipedia titles the respective article as ARTMS, as does the Japanese language edition. While I invite editors to debate the reliability of these sources or discuss points of difference in policy (so as to set a robust precedent), I also invite them to find any reliable sources which do not use the exceptional stylization. Officially, their primary website could be argued as ambiguous since we only have the all caps logo to go off of, but their official fansite consistently stylizes the name of the group as ARTMS. Their social media is consistent with the ARTMS stylization on Youtube, TikTok, Instagram, X, and their official Discord server. Marketplaces including Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Apple Music, and streaming services such as Spotify all observe the ARTMS stylization. The only exception I was successful in finding was Tidal, but it's not clear to me if this is because there is another musical act by the same name but opposite stylization (it doesn't appear to be WP:NOTABLE or in possible contention as the WP:PTOPIC in the future, but this could help disambiguate down the line). Wikipedia is not beholden to fans on SNS or fan wikis, but they can help give some indication of the WP:COMMONNAME; users on reddit and X appear to overwhelmingly observe the ARTMS stylization, as do users on any number of fan wikis I found; [2], [3], [4]. 122141510 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Reed Richards → Mister Fantastic – "Mister Fantastic" was the original name of the article and where the article was located for about 18 years until the above requested move in 2021 which had minimal participation (2 users supporting, 1 user opposing) and should have been either extended or closed as "no consensus" instead of being closed as "consensus to move". Having this article at "Reed Richards" is inconsistent: * inconsistent with his teammates: Invisible Woman, not "Susan Storm"; Human Torch, not "Johnny Storm"; Thing is currently at "Ben Grimm", but that was only moved there together with that aforementioned 2021 move which again, should have been closed as no consensus * inconsistent with his enemies: Doctor Doom, not "Victor von Doom"; Mole Man, not "Harvey Rupert Elder"; Puppet Master (Marvel Comics), not "Phillip Masters"; Galactus, not "Galan" * inconsistent with his colleagues, most Marvel superheroes: Iron Man, not "Tony Stark"; Captain America, not "Steve Rogers"; Spider-Man, not "Peter Parker"; Doctor Strange, not "Stephen Strange" * inconsistent with most superhero articles, even those outside Marvel: Superman, not "Clark Kent"; Batman, not "Bruce Wayne"; Wonder Woman, not "Diana Prince"; Spawn (character), not "Al Simmons" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) says to use the common name: * Google currently returns 2,800,000 hits for "Mister Fantastic" OR "Mr. Fantastic" and 2,280,000 hits for "Reed Richards" (which would also include some hits from real-life people named Reed Richards, not just the comic book character), so Mister Fantastic is the common name. * Collectibles and merchandise almost invariably use "Mister Fantastic" rather than "Reed Richards"; just do a search for Mister Fantastic or Reed Richards toys on Amazon or Google, and you will see they are virtually always labeled "Mister Fantastic" on the box, not "Reed Richards". Naming conventions (comics) allows an exception if a character has multiple well-known codenames like Dick Grayson (who has been Robin, Nightwing, and even Batman at different points in his history), but Reed Richards is not known by any other common codename than Mister Fantastic. In summary, consistency, common name, and Wikipedia naming conventions all support "Mister Fantastic", not "Reed Richards". —Lowellian (reply) 01:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 12, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Wyatt (disambiguation) → Wyatt – This is a misplaced disambiguation page. In 2016 the page "Wyatt" was split into a surname and a given name page, and moved to Wyatt (surname) with comment "Split given name and surname, and seems more appropriate to call this page 'surname' now", leaving "Wyatt" as a redirect to it, and leaving this long-established dab page at its disambiguated title. There are enough placenames and other uses that there seems no obvious primary topic, so this dab page should be at the base title. PamD 09:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 11, 2024

August 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Qixi Festival → Double Seventh Festival –  : 1. "Double Seventh Festival" would be consistent with the titles of pages on other Chinese festivals, such as Double Ninth Festival and Double Third Festival.  : 2. "Double Seventh Festival" is culturally neutral. This festival is not specifically "Chinese", it is a general East Asian festival (see Tanabata and Chilseok). Additionally, the cultures do not coincide with modern nation-states, "Chinese culture" is not a single culture, and it should not be equated with the Northern Chinese (Mandarin-speaking) culture.  : Of course, there are local traditions and regional differences, but the way it is celebrated among the Hokkien or Cantonese people is arguably as different from the traditions of Northern China as are Japanese and Korean ways of its celebration. Yet we don't have to split the topic even more into a Northern Chinese Qi Xi festival, Cantonese Tsat Tse Festival, Hokkien Chit Niu Ma Festival, etc. The "Double Seventh Festival" would be appropriate to cover all of the regional versions of this festival. While we are at it, Zhinü should also be moved to Weaver Girl, and Niulang to Cowherd (Chinese mythology). These characters (especially the weaver girl) also have different names even in Chinese characters, compare 織女 (Mandarin Zhīnǚ and Korean Jiknyeo), 七娘媽 (Hokkien Chhit-niû-má), 織姫 (Japanese Orihime), 七姐 (Cantonese Cat1 ze2). Currently, Orihime and Hikoboshi refer to those articles, and there are no articles on Jiknyeo and Gyeonwu. That would also be consistent with the article The Cowherd and the Weaver Girl, which uses translated English names. QuestionableAnswers (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dyfed–Powys Police → Dyfed-Powys Police – MOS:ENBETWEEN as above, the MOS:DASH reason given for the previous move doesn't apply here. MOS:ENBETWEEN states:

    Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. *Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is its capital, and this name distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea *Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities *John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

    Dyfed-Powys Police is a single police entity named after the two areas it covers, not an article with a descriptive title on the policing relationship of Powys and of Dyfed. Additionally the force themselves use a hyphen. DankJae 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Post-credits scene → Credits scene – The current title of the article is misleading, because the term post-credits scene is just a variant of a credits scene. There's also a term mid-credits scene, which is also a variant, except that it's shown between the credits. So, it's better if we have the title change to simply "Credits scene" to refer to both mid and post-credist scenes. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Save-A-Lot → Save A Lot – Contemporary sources such as this tend to render the name as "Save A Lot" with no hyphens and the A capitalized. I've found almost no sources that leave the A lowercase, so per precedent of articles such as SHeDAISY, there does seem to be enough evidence for the capital A to be in compliance with MOS:CAPS and MOS:TM. Although at the very least, common usage does seem to suggest that the hyphens have been dropped from the name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) – The last time I requested this, I got the disambiguator tag wrong ('company' rather than 'train operating company'). Since its been a few months, and I am moving this to a different name this time, it should be acceptable (as in, not disruptive) to revisit it again. But anyway, similar to my previous rationale, the Midland Mainline TOC is long gone, and almost everyone searching for this is looking for the mainline, so I propose moving Midland Mainline to Midland Mainline (train operating company) then redirecting Midland Mainline to Midland Main Line. Even Google comes up with Midland Mainline first. I do get WP:SMALLDETAILS but I don't think it applies here since the primary topic is probably the mainline over the TOC. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ascalon → Ashkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name. I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names. 1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article. 2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [31], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Litening → AN/AAQ-28 Litening – The article's lede immediately identifies that the only system discussed is the AN/AAQ-28. It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be like either AN/AAQ-28 or including the system name like AN/AAQ-28 Litening. For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either AN/AAQ-28 or AN/AAQ-28 Litening. It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Rafael AN/AAQ-28 Litening. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – R Vaishali → Vaishali Rameshbabu – This page used to be at Vaishali Rameshbabu. It was moved only because her brother's page was moved, even though this page was barely part of that discussion. Also at the time, Vaishali's name on her FIDE page was "Vaishali R". But since then, she changed her FIDE name to the full "Vaishali Rameshbabu", while her brother remains at "Praggnanandhaa R". In most cases, we set the page name on Wikipedia to be what it is on the FIDE website, so we should do that here. (From media sources, there is no clear preferred choice whether to abbreviate or not. Some abbreviate, others do not.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 15:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Baek Jong-won → Paik Jong-won – This is the WP:COMMONNAME spelling and closer to what I think is his preferred spelling of "Paik Jong Won" (based on his YouTube channel, although the titles of his videos use a variety of spellings lol; probably hired translators). Common name proof: exact google news search for "Paik Jong-won" yields 381 results, and "Baek Jong-won" yields 300 results with more spurious results due to overlapping people names. I can't find evidence that the "Paik Jong Won" spelling is used much; news coverage of him tends to use "Paik Jong-won". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 7, 2024

  • (Discuss) – 'Till You're Gone → 'Til You're Gone – or Till You're Gone. The article cites four sources. Three of them (all four are from Billboard, unfortunately) are online sources, and none of those use a double L. The track listing for the album on AllMusic uses a double L, but it doesn't have the apostrophe. AllMusic seems to have song entries for both 'Til You're Gone and Till You're Gone, but not 'Till You're Gone. Including both an apostrophe and a double L seems strange. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty → Pratihara dynasty – "Pratihara dynasty" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by this graph. This compare the usages of both "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" to "Pratihara" + "Pratiharas" after excluding the usages of "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" from the graph of "Pratiharas". This graph clearly shows the prevalence of simply "Pratihara(s)" over "Gurjara-Pratihara(s)" by a very large margin, i.e, more than 4 times. In my course of editing for Wikipedia, I've seen that scholars usually use simply "Pratihara" more than "Gurajara-Pratihara". It also seems like this would be a more WP:neutral point of view name. PadFoot (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – World Rowing Federation → World Rowing – I believe the COMMONNAME is World Rowing, which is what they consistently use fro themselves. There are examples out there of using World Rowing Federation but I think they're rare. World Rowing is also more CONCISE. For what it's worth, World Rowing Federation is not the official name. According to their Bylaws, the official name is still FISA, but "World Rowing is the designation used operationally by FISA." In searching for references online it's tricky to separate references to World Rowing from the World Rowing Championships, but here are some recent examples: [39] [40] [41] JFHutson (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Universal Classic Monsters → Universal Monsters – By far the common name. It was a massive mistake to have it moved years ago, I don't recal if I supported it then, but if I did (which is possible) it was probably under the delusion that we would eventually have separate articles for the classic releases, the overall grouping of the characters by Universal and the Dark Universe, hence three articles to cover everything in depth. As the Dark Universe never became a thing there is no reason to not just cover everything in the same article by the common name (unless someone wants to put in extra effort into having Universal Monsters and Universal Monsters (1931–1956) to cover only the classic period. But that seems unlikely as of now.) ★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lille OSC → LOSC Lille – The current title is wrong in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Firstly, the club's official name is not "Lille Olympique Sporting Club"-- that's what it used to be. Today, the club's entire official name is "LOSC Lille". "Lille OSC", the current title, is used by nobody both in common and official usage. In media, the club is often referred to as "Lille", "LOSC", and often times as "LOSC Lille". We could move the title to just "LOSC", but since the English-language "short" name for usage in articles is just "Lille", this wouldn't really work smoothly. I say we should go by the club's actual name in this specific case, which is also really commonly used in sources, only third to Lille and LOSC (which I don't believe are valid titles.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Israeli allegations against UNRWA → UNRWA and Israel – This request follows previous lengthy discussions and a rough consensus as to whether there should be a separate page covering the relationship between Israel and UNRWA. This entails a spin out of relevant material from the main UNRWA article, already in hand, to be added to this article. The change in scope is simply that all of Israel relations with UNRWA, which take up much unnecessary space at the main page, will be covered here rather than merely the recently concluded spat. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kaveen Bandara → Kavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Gandhi (disambiguation) → Gandhi – While Mahatma Gandhi is no doubt a legendary figure in world politics, it is hard to say he's the overwhelming topic of the name “Gandhi” to qualify for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Two former Indian Prime Ministers also bared this surname, along with some very notable and contemporary politicians, meaning such there are also differing usages in contemporary times.
    According to wmcloud for the past 30 days, Mahatma Gandhi has gotten around 305,000 views. Rahul Gandhi around 187,000, Indira 178,000, Rajiv 91,000, Feroze 88,000 and Sonia 65,000 among others. This shows that even though Mahatma Gandhi is a likely subject when looking up Gandhi, it is not the primary topic which views and notability are significantly and definitively ahead of all other topics combined. A quick look on the “news’’ section on Google with the term Gandhi appears to be also primarily about other Gandhis such as Rahul instead of Mahatma.
    For the reasons above, it is in my belief that the term "Gandhi" should be the disambiguation page instead of redirecting to Mahatma. Zinderboff(talk) 21:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 1976 British Isles heatwave → 1976 United Kingdom heatwave – This article, like other articles on so-called "British Isles heatwaves" focus almost entirely on the United Kingdom. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pushes the logical thought should this page not be titled "1976 United Kingdom heatwave"? Ireland is mentioned in only one sentence. The page is entirely about effects on the United Kingdom. Even the section on "Government response" is entirely UK by default, as if Ireland had no government response. It makes sense to rename this page, and move the one sentence on County Offaly to the European page for 1976. Copying my comment from above on this talk page. Thank you. Wikiejd2 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Register (sociolinguistics) → Socio-linguistic register – Parenthetical disambiguation, as used today, is kind of a last resort. Sociolinguistic is a bit squished for new readers, so I prefer a hyphen for first use, including in the title and lead sentence. I want the title to be easily parsed by readers who have not heard the term "Sociolinguistic" before, or even the prefix "Socio-". Simply Linguistic does not disambiguate enough: see Register (disambiguation)#Linguistics. Register as a base name does not meet my understanding of WP:COMMONNAME; I understand it as requiring the low-context variant (i.e. not the term used in the middle sections of papers in the field). As long as the full term is used in the titles of some papers in the field, I believe the full term should be considered to meet WP:COMMONNAME. And, well... this full name is used in the bodies of some papers, at least. And "linguistic register" is used in plenty of paper titles, but we've ruled that out for other reasons. My understanding of WP:COMMONNAME seems to be borne out by success in move discussions I started: from "Inflation (cosmology)" to "Cosmic inflation"; from "Transformation (genetics)" to "Genetic transformation". But I think it's time for me to start a discussion on the MOS talk page itself about this "low context vs high context" thing, since it may exist only in my mind at the moment, or as a non-obvious implication of other core CRITERIA for article titles. All that said, I believe Socio-linguistic register is the best title for this article. The hyphen or entire prefix can and should be dropped for most subsequent uses within the article. Jruderman (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Doctor (Doctor Who) → The Doctor – The definite article 'the' in the title designates this topic as the primary one for 'The Doctor' (but only with the definite article). This is consistent with titles such as The Guardian, The Signpost, The Postal Service, The Edge, The 1975, and The Undertaker. A Google search for "The Doctor" returns results related to Doctor Who, as does a Google image search. Similarly, a Google News search returns Doctor Who-related coverage. While a search for "The Doctor" on JSTOR for produces variable results, a search for "The Guardian" on JSTOR wouldn't establish the newspaper as the primary topic alone. A Google Ngram analysis reveals that the term 'The Doctor' saw an increase in usage in 2005, coinciding with the show's revival. Worldwide Google Trends indicate that "The Doctor" is predominantly used in reference to searches about Doctor Who, per the 'related topics' and 'related searches'; with a notable peak in November 2013, coinciding with the show's 50th anniversary special. This 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) has more coverage from reliable sources than others (with the definite article) listed on the disambiguation page. Amendment: Pageview Analysis (with a date range of 'All time') comparing all of the pages titled 'The Doctor' show that this topic has more views by a clear margin. It is limited to 10 pages, so I've split it into two: first second. On Wikipedia this topic is the most sought after 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) on the entire site. Note: When researching, "The Doctor" should be enclosed in quotation marks as some databases often exclude definite articles. Svampesky (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 03:07, 02 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tales of the Jedi (TV series) → Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eights Week → Summer Eights – While referred to as Eights Week in the past, the event is far more commonly known as Summer Eights today. All University, College, and town publication, including all material from the actual organisers refers to the event as 'Summer Eights', not 'Eights Week'. Additionally, as referred to by the last move request back in 2016, there are far more common results for Summer Eights than Eights Week in search engines. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. OxfordRowing (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tonlé Sap → Tonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all. In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake). So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation. My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is: #Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or, #Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page. The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
16:28, Tuesday, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1240060297"