Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)

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.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • 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

Pinging @Doomsdayer520. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to Democratic and Popular Union for the time being, as I think this is sufficently murky that a full discusison would be warranted in this instance. WHile there doesn't seem much call for adding Party on the end, I can see a case for either Union or Unity and Union is the long-term status quo. Ngrams show that in the party's heyday English sources were mainly using Unity, but in recent years there is a preference for Union.[1]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Per Wikipedia policy, we use WP:COMMONNAME. Not uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mounstreip This move has been contested and would need further discussion before being moved. If you wish to proceed, please click the "discuss" link in your request above. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will need to know if the name should be "Shunga" or "Sunga" because the first of those is used throughout the article. The two variations have redirects all over the place. On the other hand, you are probably correct about "dynasty" vs. "empire". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the past move discussions the article has gone through it seems either changes to "Sunga" or "dynasty" are not completely unambiguous; @Doomsdayer520, that said, could you move the page back to "Shunga Empire" as the move on 5 October downcasing the "empire" is likewise not uncontroversial? Thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs a wider discussion among experts, and I am just a page mover and not an expert on the history of India. Given two contentious page move proposals in 2023 (see the article's talk page), the community is going to have to figure out three different issues: "Shunga or Sunga", "empire or dynasty", and whether the second word should be capitalized or not. Consider requesting assistance from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 I know, and I agree that this needs more discussion; all I'm asking is that you, or someone else, revert the undiscussed page move on 5 October. Nothing more. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia College is at that name because just the title Columbia College would be ambiguous. However, Barnard College is not ambiguous, and adding "Columbia University" to the title would be unnecessary disambiguation. See WP:CONCISE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 I am not seeing where this a reversion of a previous move, so I am changing the section this is in. Bensci54 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like unnecessary disambiguation and goes against WP:CONCISE. Unless there's something I'm missing, it seems like if other international CN channels also include "TV Channel" they should have it removed as well. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bensci54 and Ahect: Don't mind if I list similar requests here for move reversions; actually, VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 is right, they are! Looking at the page history for this and similar others, WP:NCTV was cited as the reason. Even check out Nickelodeon (Israel). Intrisit (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intrisit You're probably thinking of WP:NCBC ( WP:NCTV is about TV shows, not channels), but I don't see anything in there that says to use "TV channel" when just the country (or region) name is unambiguous. Looking at the page history of Nickelodeon (Israel), you tried to move it to Nickelodeon (Israeli TV channel) and an administrator immediately moved it back to Nickelodeon (Israel) because "TV channel" was unnecessary disambiguation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: Even check out the page history of Nickelodeon (Israel). Intrisit (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky The original video game was "Spy Hunter", not "SpyHunter". See WP:SMALLDETAILS. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miklogfeather The current name is standard per WP:USPLACE. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 9 October 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 9 October 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 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| 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 9 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 22:41, 9 October 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 9 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 22:41, 9 October 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 9 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 22:41, 9 October 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 9 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 22:41, 9 October 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 9 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 22:41, 9 October 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. 67 discussions have been relisted.

October 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Michael Magee → Michael Magee (actor) – Not at all clear that the Canadian actor would be a permanent WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name, over and above other people in the disambiguation page. In fact, comparing him just to Michael Magee (writer) alone, the writer has the higher page views — only on September 21 did the writer dip below the actor in page views, and even then only by a whopping total of two, while the overall average over the past three weeks was 29 daily views for the writer to 13 daily views for the actor. (That's obviously not enough of a difference to render the writer into primary topic either, so the base title should be a disambiguation page, but it is enough to wreck any claim that the actor should be the primary topic.) And I even just caught a case where one of the writer's novels existed as a redirect to the actor instead of to the writer, which I've already corrected. The actor was largely only ever known in Canada, and even then was almost better known by the character pseudonym "Fred C. Dobbs" than by his own real name, so he's hardly a universal primary topic to the world. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fishing Lakes → Calling Lakes – The widely used name for these lakes amongst local governments and organization is no longer Fishing Lakes. It has been replaced by Calling Lakes with Qu'Appelle, a french word that means "who calls", as the second most common name usage. The locale is predominantly English speakers with french being another official language in the country. It is less ambiguous to use the proper Calling Lakes name as search engine results for Fishing Lakes will bring content for lakes in general that are good to fish at regardless of location. Therefore fishing lakes is an ambiguous place name and should be demoted. 198.245.116.192 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yemen women's national football team → Women's football in Yemen – While the AfD from five years ago closed as keep, I think the focus of this article should be women's football overall in Yemen. I have found no secondary sources to indicate that this "team" has ever played a match (page 216 of this PDF lists no matches from 2002 to 2006, and the team has never appeared in the FIFA Women's World Rankings). While this FIFA PDF from 2009 indicated there was a women's "A" team, I could not find any secondary sources to corroborate this. It's also worth noting the data would have been reported by the Yemeni FA to FIFA, so it is not exactly a reliable indicator of whether a team exists. Maybe there is a training system/youth development, but I don't think that is enough to prove the existence of an official women's national team; that requires playing a match. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tedcastles Oil Products → Top Oil – This business has not been known as Tedcastles Oil Products since the 1990s, and has been known as Top Oil since 1998. This is its common name, by which most people would recognise it. Most people would never have heard of Tedcastles Oil Products. The business is owned by Irving Oil, so it's not even that the current article title reflects its owner's name. Gatepainter (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Grey parrot → Congo grey parrot – The Timneh parrot was traditionally considered a grey parrot. Continuing to call the species Psittacus erithacus the "grey parrot" after the split is incredibly misleading, suggesting that the Timneh parrot is still included, even though it is not. Common names do not have type specimens/species. They are population-based, not type-based. If the concept of "grey parrots" included Timneh parrots prior to the split, it must continue to do so. I understand that Clements Checklist calls the Congo grey parrot "Gray Parrot", but in the minds of most people "grey parrot" and "African grey parrot" still refer to the entire genus. Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[1] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Benjamin Harrison (Niehaus) → Statue of Benjamin Harrison – Per WP:VAMOS, which says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere)." --Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2024

October 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Motukorea → Browns Island (New Zealand) – Motukorea is an obscure name people are not familiar with. Article titles should be recognisable to the average person. The names have roughly equal usage in sources with many different forms provided but Browns Island is far more recognisable to Aucklanders. Browns Island (Motukorea) is the legally recorded name of the island although such a title might suggest it is the Browns Island of Motukorea. See link below for data on search Traumnovelle (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stonewall riots → Stonewall uprising – The Stonewall uprising was a civil rights movement, a rebellion, and an uprising. It was never about "riots" and was never meant to be so in the first place. Quoting Stormé DeLarverie: Stormé on Stonewall "It was a rebellion, it was an uprising, it was a civil rights disobedience -- it wasn't no damn riot", declared Stormé at a public and videographed SVA-sponsored "Stonewall Symposium", referring to the historic 1969 Stonewall Rebellion. Stormé was a part of the uprising on the very first night, Friday, June 27th 1969. "The cops were parading patrons out of the front door of The Stonewall at about two o' clock in the morning. I saw this one boy being taken out by three cops, only one in uniform. Three to one! I told my pals, 'I know him! That's Willson, my friend Sonia Jane's friend.' Willson briefly broke loose but they grabbed the back of his jacket and pulled him right down on the cement street. One of them did a drop kick on him. Another cop senselessly hit him from the back. Right after that, a cop said to me: 'Move faggot', thinking that I was a Gay guy. I said, 'I will not! And, don't you dare touch me.' With that, the cop shoved me and I instinctively punched him right in his face. He bled! He was then dropping to the ground -- not me!"[1] — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 09:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – CBS Weekend → CBS WKND – This is the official branding for the block, this shouldn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines to use it on the title, using "CBS Weekend" for the title is disruptive to me in my opinion, and could cause confusion for other articles with similar titles in it, including CBS Weekend News, although some users in the previous move discussion said that "CBS Weekend" reads better to them, it's an unofficial branding and is disruptive to me to use it instead of "CBS WKND." 2603:6081:893D:13AC:7100:943E:5C15:68C0 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neopanax colensoi → Pseudopanax colensoi – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA - overwhelming usage within recent scientific papers, despite mixed use in taxonomic databases. Without a clear scientific basis for a preference of one name over the other, MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES: that there is a clear consensus among New Zealand scientific sources for a clade of plants endemic to New Zealand. *Neopanax and Pseudopanax together form a clade. Currently there are three morphological forms of the species within this clade - two are always described as Pseudopanax, while one (the more basal form) is sometimes described as Neopanax and sometimes Pseudopanax. page 52 of this thesis has a useful graph showing phylogenetic relationships within the group. Neopanax was synonymised with Pseudopanax in the 20th century, re-established as a genus in 2004, but the justification of this was disputed in 2009. The distinction appears to be one based on conventions rather than a clear scientific justification (i.e. less based on whether or not Neopanax is a distinct clade within Pseudopanax, and more based on whether it's justified to use a different name for this clade, or to continue to use the pre-2004 convention). This issue was previously discussed at WikiProject Plants. *Different taxonomical databases use different preferred names. Pseudopanax is overwhelmingly used by New Zealand databases. **Pseudopanax preferred: NZ Flora, Biota of New Zealand, IUCN, iNaturalist, NZOR and NZTCS **Neopanax preferred: CoL, EoL, GBIF, IRMNG, NCBI, OTOL, POWO *Recent scientific sources outside of taxonomic databases overwhelmingly prefer Pseudopanax. Looking at Post-2020 Google Scholar results for species within the Neopanax clade:

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Juan Fageda → Joan Fageda – His birth certificate may well say the Castilian name Juan and he would have been forced into that name for the first 40 years of his life, but personal preferences and modern sources strongly prefer the Catalan name Joan. Going by WP:OFFICIALNAME we would have William Clinton and Anthony Blair. Fageda's website is joanfageda.com and this letter on it is signed as Joan [28]. Third-party sources in Castilian are using Joan [29] even the conservative El Mundo [30] and the nationalist OKDiario [31] so this is not editorial Catalanism, something that the subject as a People's Party politician is exceedingly unlikely to support Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Joseon → Chosŏn – I'm proposing this mainly to poll opinions in the manner of an WP:RFC, as well as to try and illustrate how our new MOS works. If you're a regular on any Korea topics, I encourage you to think about what I'm discussing here because similar principles will apply to many other moves that may happen in the near future. Context: # "Chosŏn" is the McCune–Reischauer ("MR") romanization of 조선. "Joseon" is using Revised Romanization ("RR"). # We recently rewrote MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. As part of this, MR is now recommended for all pre-1945 topics. Before the rewrite, RR was recommended for pre-1945 topics (except, confusingly, for people names lol...). Thoughts: # Relevant policies: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. These policies are also the foundation for MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. # Coverage in RS: #* MR and "Chosŏn" are used by almost all Korean history academic journals ([32][33]). #* In my experience, practice in books is more divided. Well-respected and widely used history books almost universally use MR and "Chosŏn". All other books (including less reliable pop culture books about Korea) seem to use RR and "Joseon". This divided use can be somewhat seen in the close race on Ngrams, which measures mentions in books. However, if we prioritize the most reliable sources, this still leans towards MR. #* News and pop culture tend to use "Joseon", like Poong, the Joseon Psychiatrist. #* Together, this suggests that academia uses "Chosŏn", but average people may use "Joseon". # Since this article was created 21 years ago in 2003, it has never gone by "Chosŏn". Moving it to that has seemingly never even been requested. I think this clearly suggests that Wikipedia editors have a preference for this spelling. #* Wikipedia's use of the spelling also possibly influenced global use of the spelling as well. #* Oh, and it's also annoying to type the diacritic letter (ŏ); it's frustratingly not easily available on Mac, PC, or iPhones. In short, there's basically three relevant groups here: academic historians (prefer MR), average people around the world (RR), and Wikipedia editors (RR). I think this move should be decided by how much you want to cater towards each of these groups. I want to hear other arguments or want others to weigh in. I'm actually leaning towards "Joseon" being more appropriate. I think Wikipedia is meant to be used by the average person, and clearly both average people and Wikipedia editors prefer that spelling. But I'm leaving open the possibility for "Chosŏn" to happen. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Uralic Phonetic Alphabet → Finno-Ugric Transcription – This is the traditional term. Salminen (2024) writes Finno-Ugric Transcription has occasionally been called the “Uralic Phonetic Alphabet”, which is a misnomer for every word in the term, as “Finno-Ugric” has been included in the name of the system from the very beginning, the system is decidedly linguistic rather than phonetic, and it by no means constitutes an alphabet. Note the use of the word "occasionally", which means we have both a reliable and recent source for the fact that "Uralic Phonetic Alphabet" is not the primary name. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Best friends forever → Best friend – We have separate Wikipedia articles for Girlfriend and Boyfriend, also for "Significant other", and not only for Friendship but also for specific types of it (Romantic friendship, Cross-sex friendship, Friend zone). Thus I am surprised both that there is no such an article for the topic of best friends and that this sentence has an article of its own. I propose expanding the scope of this article to cover the topic of best friends in general. The sentence itself could have a section of its own if necessary. There's a bigger amount of academic research on the topic of best friends than one might initially expect [34], so there'd be stuff to write about in such an article. Most sources in this article seem to already cover the relationship in general rather than only the sentence. Even some of the text in this article itself already does this (see last paragraph at "Academic studies" section). The article needs rework anyway (some sources are informal, see OUPblog or barbaradelinsky.com; and some of the article's redaction is strange, see In 2010, the BFF concept was a part of a BFF contract "to encourage the signatories to work through their differences before splitting up."), and I think expanding its scope would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Picross → Picross (video game series) – Picross is the name of the pencil-and-paper puzzle which serve as the basis for these video games, that previously was a redirect to Nonogram which is the more common name for those puzzles. In terms of this move, the pencil-and-paper topic is far more the PRIMARYTOPIC than this video game series which is based off that. Note that this would also mean a recreaction of the Picross to Nonogram redirect after this move. Masem (t) 00:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2024

  • (Discuss) – LGBT pride → LGBTQ pride – The page was moved from Gay pride to LGBT pride a few years ago in recognition that this article is about Pride of the community, not just exclusively the Gay community, despite the term Gay pride still being higher in use than LGBT pride was at the time, so the consensus for the article was explicitly to deviate from exclusively applying WP:COMMONNAME as a compound word in the move in 2022 in recognition that the true common name nowadays is just Pride without any qualifiers. Now as a followup some years later, I propose we move it to LGBTQ pride in recognition of the community continuing to evolve and explicitly adding the Q as was also recently done in the main article LGBTQ (RM discussion) in recognition of LGBTQ replacing just LGBT. The person that contested the bold move argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied, but as I pointed out, this article is already not named in line with strict common name of the combined term, but in recognition of the community as the true common name today is simply "Pride" (in line with the sibling articles Pride Month and Pride parade, which doesn't need a qualifier, so no suffix or prefix is needed to disambiguate) without any qualifiers, but since the article requires a qualifier to differentiate it from just the English word Pride, it was then decided to add LGBT for it, which was the common name for the community at large at the time, consistent with the parent article, which was also LGBT at the time and instead of using Pride (LGBT) it was decided to use LGBT Pride per WP:NATURAL to use a prefix, not a suffix, so the current article title should not be interpreted as a compound word, but instead is just a natural combination instead of suffix disambiguation. Following this now, I believe means we should continue to now also follow WP:CONSUB for consistent titling of sub-articles related to the parent title. This is also supported if we combine LGBTQ pride and Queer pride, which is about double that of just LGBT pride per Google Ngram and this also shows that LGBT pride is on a downwards trend since 2017, while LGBTQ pride and Queer pride both are on an upwards trajectory, both individually, as well as combined having overtaken just LGBT pride since 2016. The other alternative would be to break from the natural title disambiguation and call the aticle Pride (LGBTQ) in recognition that the name of the article is just Pride and that the prefix or suffix are just disambiguators from Pride (disambiguation) terms. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Enhanced interrogation techniques → Use of torture under George W. Bush – It seems like the last time this was debated, much of the content of the page and the WP:RS consensus was not present. Now, the article itself shows near unanimous agreement that EIT = torture. I don't have a good replacement name, but the current name has about as much support as "Shower Rooms in Nazi Germany". For example: "According to ABC news in 2007, the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of acceptable interrogation techniques in 2006." If these techniques were "enhanced", why are they no longer used? Even the group the put that name out there doesn't believe in the techniques anymore. It was a branding exercise, not a meaningful summary or specifier on the techniques used. Compare to Enhanced driver's license and Enhanced Fujita scale. I just skimmed the article and the only people I could find calling it not-torture in the modern-ish era are: Bush administration officials, and NPR in 2009 (15 years ago). NPR has since published the term in scare quotes[2], leading one to wonder how useful the descriptor is. I notice the page for Armenian genocide is not the "events of 1915" (one of the Turkish euphemisms for the genocide), for example.

References

  1. ^ Stormé DeLarverie, S.V.A. Stonewall Ambassador * Jewel Box Revue * Imperial QUEENS & Kings of NY
  2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)). — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2024

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.
  • (Discuss) – Quonset Hut Studio → Bradley Studios – The studio that came to be known as the "Quonset hut studio" was the second of two studios (Studio B) at Bradley Studios. Bradley Studios was later purchased by Columbia Studios, who retained the "Quonset hut studio" as Columbia Studio B, but built a new Columbia Studio A as part of the Music Row complex. While Studio B has generally been known as the "Quonset hut studio", it's only part of the story of that recording facility, and even the historical marker at the site is about Bradley Studios and not only the "Quonset hut studio". Now that the article has been expanded to encompass Bradley Studios and later Columbia Studios, I think the article would more appropriately be named Bradley Studios, with a Redirect page for the "Quonset hut studio". synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 19:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Éric Borel → Cuers massacre – This could go either way, but I think this article would be better scoped as an article on the event and not the perpetrator, given WP:BIO1E. Admittedly, a very large proportion of the coverage on the event is about Borel, so even as an event-based article it will probably still largely be about him, but given that he has no notability outside of it and how the event is covered I believe it will be easier to structure and improve as an event-based article. The common title for the event in French is "Tuerie de Cuers", literally Cuers massacre. There were killings in other locations but the sources call it this. This incident is usually referred to without the year in French given how notorious it was (I think it's the worst non-terror mass shooting in France), but admittedly is not too well known overseas so specifying the year may be necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [41] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [42] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [46] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso shooting → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting – Per WP:UCRN. Though at the time of the shooting (around 2019) the shooting was more commonly referred to as something in the vein of "El Paso shooting" by reliable sources, in recent years reliable sources trend towards calling it something akin to "El Paso Walmart shooting". Out of 50 articles published since 2020 about the incident, 42 mention Walmart in the title while 8 do not. The 'Walmart' aspect appears to be part of a commonly recognised naming convention, which should be reflected in the page's title. Reliable sources that tended to include 'Walmart' in their titles include CNN, PBS, BBC News, ABC News, AP News, The Independent, the Washington Post, NBC News and others. Local news sources, such as the Texas Tribune and El Paso Times, tended to also refer to 'Walmart' in their titles. I recommend '2019 El Paso Walmart shooting' as it fits other naming conventions. If needed, I can provide several of the referenced articles, though they can be found by Google search. Macxcxz (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ a b Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Moggy → Domestic cat (landrace) – Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. Cats are found worldwide. There is no place for a localized colloquialism to be a MAIN page reference on Wikipedia. I am located in the United States and never once have I ever heard the term “moggy” used to refer to a cat. The merging of Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat was an appropriate move as the only difference is the gene for hair growth. However, I don’t understand why a slang term page was revived from like, 2007 to merge the two pages together. Wikipedia Manual of Style in the Opportunities for Commonality section states that as an international English-speaking Wikipedia, using universally accepted terms is much more appropriate. For example, “to mog” or “mogging” in Gen Alpha terms - see mog. Nobody outside of Britian or Australia even knows what a moggy is. To make things messier, there were previous merges and fights about “moggy” vs. “moggie.” Y’all do not need a page for your local colloquialism. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality bullet points 1-4. My new write-up for the beginning of the new article also explains this landrace breed, using hyphenation glossing as is suggested by the Manual of Style: A Domestic shorthair or Domestic longhair cat, sometimes regionally referred to as a moggy, is a landrace breed of cat reproducing without human intervention for type. The vast majority of cats worldwide lack any pedigree ancestry. The landrace can include cats living with humans or in feral colonies. Gene flow moves between the two populations as feral cats are tamed, housecats are released, and free-roaming unneutered cats breed freely. Simmy27star (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 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) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

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:
22:41, Wednesday, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1248378500"