Click here to purge this page

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

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

Undiscussed moves

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.

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=reason for 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

This has been a primary redirect since 2006, and at first glance, a justified one. Not uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME may be more relevant here, rather than his full name. I see him named three different ways in various reliable sources: Milan Smith; Milan D. Smith; and Milan D. Smith, Jr. If journalists use the basic "Milan Smith" at least part of the time, there seems to be no harm with using that for his article title here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think of him as "Milan Smith", but that may be because I'd seen this Wikipedia article. @Adg135cg: We don't necessarily go by "full name" (like John G. Roberts, Jr.) unless that is the most common name in independent, reliable sources or unless there is a need to distinguish this article from another article about a person of the same name. This technical request has been contested. As such, it would require a requested-move discussion, which you can begin by clicking "discuss" on your request. You can remove this request after opening a discussion (or if you do not want to continue). SilverLocust 💬 11:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Katherinezhang000 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

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

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 19 March 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

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.
}}

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

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 19 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 11:42, 19 March 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 19 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 11:42, 19 March 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 19 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 11:42, 19 March 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 19 March 2024

– why Example (talk) 11:42, 19 March 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 19 March 2024

– why Example (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

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

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 is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
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. 100 discussions have been relisted.

March 19, 2024

  • (Discuss)Anarchist St. Imier InternationalAnti-Authoritarian International – In my experience, the term "Anti-Authoritarian International" appears to be the common name for this organisation in historical sources.[12] I rarely see it referred to as the "Anarchist International", as the term "anarchist" wasn't even formally adopted by members of the organisation until after it had already collapsed (see Graham 2019, p. 339). But we do know that they referred to themselves as "anti-authoritarians", in order to distance themselves from the Marxist International. Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jew's harpJaw harp – "Jew harp" has only 3,50,000 results, "Jew's harp" has only 1,75,000 results, but "Jaw harp" has 6,50,000 results on Google, while "Mouth harp" has 5,42,000 results. "Jaw harp" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Not only that, but "Jew's harp" is treated as anti-semitic by a number of sources.[22][23] This is yet another reason why we should avoid using this title. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dje (disambiguation) → ? – This might be yet another disambig without a primary topic. Pageview data does show that Dje (the letter) is the most viewed one for now, narrowly beating out G (disambiguation). However, both Google and DuckDuckGo bring up a mishmash of topics when I search up "dje" in either, so maybe dabbing is better. (Or maybe I've done too many "no primary topic" RMs and it's all going to my head). Duckmather (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Blue Water ThesisSalt water thesis – This concept is not consistently capitalized so it should be decapped, whether "blue water" or "salt water" is used. However, while researching it I discovered that "salt water" seems to be slightly more common. (t · c) buidhe 02:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18, 2024

  • (Discuss)Black Europeans of African ancestryBlack Europeans – Because Black Europeans of Caribbean Ancestry are not the same as Black Europeans of African ancestry. Moreover, the only photo used is of a Caribbean celebration and the data includes both Black Europeans of African ancestry and Black Europeans of Caribbean Ancestry. Plus, it's not inclusive of Black Europeans of Black American/Brazilian/Colombian etc. descent. Moreover, there are no other articles for Black European to redirect to, so it is not a concise title as per WP:CONCISE. Plus, Black Europeans would be precise as there is no disambiguation (as per Wikipedia:PRECISION) since the article references Black Europeans of Caribbean Ancestry. Freee Contributor (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ad Infinitum (band)Ad Infinitum (synth-pop band) – For disambiguation from Ad Infinitum (metal band). This band does not seem especially notable, although it had some notable members. It was a short-lived group that released only one single, which was a cover of someone else's song and apparently did not chart. This article gets about one page view per month (perhaps mostly from people looking for the other article). The other one has been getting about 120 page views per day or 3,600 views per month since its creation two and a half years ago, so it has more than 3,000× the readership interest. There is some WP:RECENTISM in that ratio (this band is from 40 years ago, while the other one is freshly minted), but that is not the basic problem. Merging/deleting this article is another possibility. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Shukan ShinchoShūkan Shinchō – Having the macron in the name is the more correct translation of this Japanese magazine name to English. No standard title has been established in English so we should defer to the technically correct translation for the page title. DCsansei (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dmitry GordonDmytro Hordon – Since all Ukrainian names (including of people, places and etc; e.g. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Mykolaiv, Dmytro Chyhrynskyi and etc) are now written in Ukrainian, wouldn't it make more sense to have Dmytro Hordon's name written as "Dmytro Hordon"? Or at the very least make a redirect page directing "Dmytro Hordon" to the article? I'm very well aware that the journalist does almost all of his interviews and blogs in Russian and when speaking Russian, refers to himself as "Dmitriy Gordon" (as seen countless times on his YouTube channel), but I just think this change would have helped with the consistency of this article with all the other ones.. Nursultan Malik(talk) 18:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of Korean films of 1919–1948List of films produced in Korea under Japanese rule – I don't agree with the 1948 cutoff as a threshold. See Cinema of Korea; I think if anything 1945 would make more sense as a dividing line. The Korean Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia agrees with me (;; both mean "[List of] films produced in Korea under Japanese rule"). My guess the original rationale for the 1948 line is that North Korea/South Korea were only officially established in 1948. But they de facto existed from 1945 to 1948, and commonly went by those names. I don't think their official establishment is such an important distinction for us to use such an arbitrary dividing line. 1947 and 1949 in North/South Korea were very similar. 1944 and 1946 were extremely different. Furthermore, I'd argue North and South Korean cinema were divided even just months after the 1945 division; North Korea's first film was the 1946 newsreel Our Construction, and thereafter its major films were basically all government-produced or approved. South Korean cinema was still largely produced by private citizens. If this move happens, I can do the rescope. I'll fit it into the formats of Lists of South Korean films and List of North Korean films. Just tag me once it's done. toobigtokale (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Oruç ReisAruj Barbarossa – Aruj Barbarossa or simply "Aruj" is how he's referred to in the majority of reliable sources. "Oruç" is mostly used in modern Turkish sources. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Pineapple lumpsPineapple Lumps – Article was moved in 2020 to "Pineapple lumps" (lowercase), with the reasoning Article is about pineapple lumps in general rather than a specific brand. The History section of this article describes the history of the Pascall brand. It even says Rainbow sells pineapple chunks under its own brand, signifying that the article is talking about Pascall's brand. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17, 2024

  • (Discuss)Avatar: The Last AirbenderAvatar: The Last Airbender (animated series) – Both the animated series and the live action of 2024 are seeing very similar amounts of page views. This is despite the google search immediately taking you to this page, rather than the live action. 2 weeks ago both received around 150k views at their peak and both are now averaging around 25k. I think it would make more sense just to clarify that this is the animated series to make it easier for people to find the live action. Furthermore as the live action has now been renewed for both seasons 2 and 3, this will not be short lived problem, so it makes sense to fix it now, rather than down the line. Jasp7676 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16, 2024

  • (Discuss)Gurjar tribesList of Gurjar clans – From the article opening: "Gurjars or Gujjars, a tribe in South Asia, are divided in a large number of clans." The article is also labeled with the template {Gurjar clans}. The "article" also appears to be a list rather than a true article. Gjs238 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Doctor Who: The Curse of Fatal DeathThe Curse of Fatal Death – Per the article, the episode was known as "Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death" around its original broadcast. As far as I can tell, no on-screen title was used during the Comic Relief 1999 evening. The VHS release then used the standardised format of displaying the series logo and "The Curse of Fatal Death" underneath, as shown in the cover image in the article, and according to the article the home release uses the simplified title on-screen also. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the series title is included in this iteration of the title for the article. "Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death" may be an acceptable alternative, but I suggest the simplified version due to the lack of an on-screen broadcast title and the official home release that uses it, in conjunction with WP:CONCISE. Move requires overwriting of the present redirect. U-Mos (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sarukhan, Bey of MagnesiaSaruhan – Already redirects here. Else, it can be Saruhan Bey or something similar, because this is the only person with the name on Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Magnesia is only a settlement, and he and his descendants ruled a region, more than just one town. So, "Magnesia" should definitely be removed in some way. Aintabli (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Breuil-CerviniaLe Breuil, Aosta Valley – The autonomous region of Aosta Valley has changed the official name of this frazione (hamlet) to Le Breuil through a regional decree (Decreto 21 settembre 2023, n. 479, p.3433) in September 2023, bringing it back to its pre-fascist spelling. Since the name Le Breuil is shared between other francophone municipalities (in France), Aosta Valley at the end of the article title seems to be compliant with WP:PLACE and WP:CONSISTENT with similar locations (i.e. Châtillon, Aosta Valley). This doesn't affect the commercial name of the ski station, which will remain Cervinia, and which could theoretically be split from the article, given that Cervinia (the ski station) is not a CFORK of the article about the village of Le Breuil. Pilaz (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 15, 2024

  • (Discuss)DinocephalosauridaeTrachelosauridae – A recent study (Spiekman et al. 2024)[43] has redescribed the extinct reptile Trachelosaurus, and found it to be a member of the family which Spiekman et al. (2021) had named Dinocephalosauridae. Trachelosaurus was previously given its own monotypic family Trachelosauridae, which was named in 1919. Now that Dinocephalosauridae and Trachelosauridae are understood to be the same taxonomic grouping, the Principle of Priority states that the latter name should be used over the former. I doubt that there will be much disagreement in the literature: the anatomical implications are clear and Stephan Spiekman is the first author for both the 2021 and 2024 studies. I'm requesting a move since Trachelosauridae is a page which currently exists as a redirect to Trachelosaurus, so moving Dinocephalosauridae myself would be unproductive. NGPezz (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 14, 2024

  • (Discuss)Henryk IV ProbusHenry Probus – Per WP:NCROY. "Use the most common, unambiguous name: Carl XVI Gustaf, Elizabeth II, Alfonso XII, Louis XIV, William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Mary, Queen of Scots, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." "Henry Probus" is more common than "Henryk Probus" "Henryk IV Probus" (the current title) and "Henry IV Probus" [51] UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflictPolish-Ukrainian relations (1939-1947) – The article's author was unable to demonstrate the source basis for the existence of a Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in 1942-47; the very fact that he places the Polish anti-communist and pro-independence Freedom and Independence Association on the Ukrainian side demonstrates his poor grasp of the subject, but also, and above all, the inability to narrate the entire history solely through the optics of "ethnic conflict." For indeed, this is a misleading take. First, because it is difficult to define the actors. The Polish side is not homogeneous: there are many organizations, and the three main currents (the Home Army, the Nationalists and the Communists) had different attitudes toward the Ukrainian cause and did not pursue a uniform policy. Likewise, on the Ukrainian side, there is the OUN-M, OUN-B (and UPA), UCK collaborators, Bulbovets, Ukrainian Soviet partisans, Ukrainian SSR authorities, etc. Second, despite generally hostile relations, there were also periods of peace, attempts at agreement, and actual alliances. There is an entire book by Grzegorz Motyka and Rafał Wnuk on this subject: "Pany and rezuny. Cooperation of the AK-WiN and the UPA 1945-1947". Many Ukrainians served in the Polish army in 1939 and in the Polish armed forces in the west. Pavlo Shandruk cooperated with the Polish government in exile etc. These are things largely not currently described on Wikipedia. In the current situation, I see two choices: # due to the fact that the article is a translation from the Polish Wiki of the article under the title " Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting", we can move it under this title and change the scope to describe the skirmishes between the two partisan movement. # or, as I suggest, move it under the title I proposed and describe the whole of Polish-Ukrainian relations during the war. I believe that such an article would be valuable and would be a " container" tying together all the topics currently described in isolation (the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, the Hrubieszów revolution, the WiN-UPA alliance, etc.). Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Battle of Van BurenVan Buren Raid – I've been thinking about this after attending a Civil War Roundtable presentation on this event, which referred to it as the "Van Buren Raid". It's noteworth that of the two principal sources, Bearss 1967 is titled "The Federals Raid Van Buren and Threaten Fort Smith" and the relevant chapter in Shea 2009 is titled "Raid on Van Buren", with the following chapter beginning "The Van Buren raid marked ...". The Encyclopedia of Arkansas refers to this as the "Capture of Van Buren", and never uses the term "battle" to describe this event. I no longer believe the current title is appropriate terminology to refer to this action as a battle. Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sasha BanksMercedes Moné – Per WP:NAMECHANGES. When I closed the RM at Talk:Saraya Bevis – which was a sui generis closure – I noted that when wrestlers change their ring names as a result of leaving and/or joining WWE, RMs typically go with their new ring names if a certain amount of time has passed. Varnado has not wrestled for WWE for nearly two years now. As a high-profile signing to AEW (high-profile enough to warrant a Dynamite special episode all for her, at any rate), Varnado has already received press coverage in the past few weeks and especially the past couple of hours and from a cursory glance at Google News, the uptake of her new ring name as the primary way to refer to her (albeit with a one-time "f.k.a. Sasha Banks in WWE") seems to be already established. Sceptre (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13, 2024

  • (Discuss)Yakub Beg → ? – This article is currently almost identical in title to Ya'qub Beg, which is also spelled as "Yakub Beg" in sources. Other homonymous historical people referred to as Yakub Beg include the rulers of Germiyan, Yakub I of Germiyan and Yakub II: [52] I think it is clear that Yakub Beg of Yettishar is not the primary topic, so this article should be renamed to something else, perhaps "Yakub Padishah", and "Yakub Beg" should be a disambiguation page (or redirect to one). Aintabli (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ya'qub BegYaqub Aq Qoyunlu – There were clearly multiple "Yaqub Beg"s in history, one being Yakub Beg, which is currently almost identical to the title of this article. Other homonymous historical people include the rulers of Germiyan, Yakub I of Germiyan and Yakub II: [53] The dynasty of "Ya'qub Beg", which is "Aq Qoyunlu," should be included in the title in one form or another for disambiguation. Moreover, "Yaqub Aq Qoyunlu" is not an unprecedented combination in academia: [54][55] Aintabli (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Acclaim Studios ManchesterSoftware Creations – This defunct studio was far better known by its original, longtime name, and not the current title, which was only in place for two years and appeared on only a couple of games, whereas the original name was used for dozens of games. The original name of vastly more recognizable. I'd even boldly say the 2018 move to this name was a total mistake, though it apparently was in part prompted by getting away from unnecessary disambiguation (the only other article was for a long-gone, never notable BBS company that prevented this article from having the proper title. The undisambiguated title is currently a redirect to here. oknazevad (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Pac-Man Museum +Pac-Man Museum+WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, Originally moved from "Museum+" to "Museum +" because of a few official social media posts using "Museum +", which should not have been done as Bandai Namco themselves flip flopped between using "Museum +" and "Museum+" when the game was first announced and being released, as can be seen by searching Museum on Bandai Namco's US Twitter account. Every post on the official Pac-Man twitter account used "Museum+", with the sole exception of one, which given it was in a series of similarly formatted tweets, was most likely a typo. Additionally, 19 sources on the article in question use "Museum+", while only the Nintendo World Report citation uses "Museum +" detriaskies 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Francis, Duke of GuiseFrançois, Duke of Guise – Requesting move of these articles per WP:COMMONNAME. I will begin my argument with ngrams, even though I find them largely overcrowded by noise. Please see [56] [57] [58] [59] Moving beyond ngrams, my argument revolves around the English literature that focuses on the family, the era of the Italian Wars, and the era French Wars of Religion, both areas of which they played a central role in and are therefore not an incidental mention in. Stuart Carroll (2011) Martyr's and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe, is the most recent English language biography of the family - it refers to the second duke of Guise as François, his son the third duke as Henri and the fifth duke of Guise as Henri II (also the seventh duke of Guise as François-Joseph though that Wikipedia article is already at François-Joseph, so does not require changing.) The other recent English book which discusses them in the title is Mark Konnert's (2006) Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595) - it refers to François, and Henri. I will now briefly survey English academics who have written on this area in the last couple of decades, and their various positions on the names. Gould (2006) = François; Roelker (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri; Roelker (1996) = François, Henri; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François, Spangler (2016) = Henri Tingle (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri Holt (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name. sovietblobfish (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)1933 German referendum1933 German League of Nations withdrawal referendumWP:NC-GAL, the naming guideline for referendums, sets out the naming format for referendums as being [date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] referendum", for example 1946 Faroese independence referendum, though it is worth pointing out some referendum articles do not have the [type] added, because it is too complex to explain in a few words or the referendums cover multiple topics. However, I do not think this is the case for these four articles (particularly not the first two listed) I had assumed the move of this article would be uncontroversial given the naming convention (and made it a short time ago), but it was was reverted because it made the article title inconsistent with others, so now using the formal RM process. I think the proposed titles of the 1933 and 1926 articles should be uncontroversial and in line with the naming guideline. I am not 100% convinced that there are not better alternatives for the 1929 and 1934 articles, which I am happy for alternatives to be suggested or simply to keep them at the existing titles if they are deemed to awkward. However, I felt that given the move of this article was reverted because the other articles hadn't been moved, it would be best to cover this in a single discussion, even if it is a little messy, so it might be best for responders to indicate whether they approve of all or merely some of the proposals (or none). Cheers, Number 57 17:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12, 2024

  • (Discuss)Nitro (Imagicaa)Hot Wheels Nitro – The ride name seems to be Hot Wheels Nitro since it was renamed in 2018. According to https://blooloop.com/theme-park/news/imagica-hot-wheels/, which is a reliable source according to discussion, the park partnered with Mattel in 2018 to rename the ride. The name is also used on the Roller Coaster Database, which is a reliable source which has survived GA and FA reviews. I just am not sure if the Hot Wheels name is still in use, though there does not seem to be evidence to the contrary. ReedyTurnip (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Puławy factionPuławians – Per above discussion and relisting comment, I'm reopening the proposal with the variants proposed by Piotrus so we can get a clear sense of whether these have consensus. Please indicate if these are supported or not, or suggest other alternatives if desired.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)TACLTACL (programming language) – So, I recently created an article for the Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, a journal whose name is commonly abbreviated TACL. It is not obvious why TACL, as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should refer to TACL the programming language and not the journal. The journal is relatively new, having been launched in 2013, but since then it has become an extremely popular and notable publication venue for computational linguists. A quick Google search for "TACL" reveals that the vast majority of websites on the first many pages of results refer to the journal, and only a tiny few to the programming language. Therefore, I move that this page be moved to TACL (programming language) and that the page TACL be made either: # a redirect to Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (with the implication that the journal is now considered the primary topic), OR # a disambiguation page (essentially, move TACL (disambiguation) to TACL) (with the implication that there is no primary topic for this term). What I can't support, however, based on the guidelines at WP:DPT, is keeping the programming language as the primary topic. It is a rarely used, antiquated language, and by any metric, usage of the term to refer to the journal has outstripped usage referring to the programming language. On balance, I think the case is stronger for (2), especially on the basis of the WP:DPT guidance that Initialisms and acronyms are often so ambiguous that it's less likely a primary topic can be determined in those cases. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Fremantle Football ClubFremantle Dockers – Discussing titles for the new Tasmanian team has me thinking about how our AFL clubs' articles are named – in my view, they're not up to scratch with modern titling policy. For context, of the 18 AFL clubs, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs currently use the "[location] [mascot]" combo, with the other 13 currently at "[location] Football Club". In my view, we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases, because it is more concise, recognisable and is used more often by our sources. Past justifications for using "[location] Football Club" have tended to rest on the idea that articles should use whatever the club's official name is, which is not necessarily true. Aside from this general rationale, some points specific to Fremantle: *Clubs that have acquired their current name after the 1980s – Sydney (relocated 1982), West Coast (entered 1987), Western Bulldogs (rebranded 1996), Gold Coast (entered 2011) and GWS (entered 2012) – all use "[location] [mascot]". The exception is Adelaide (entered 1991, title is "Adelaide Football Club") but their article also probably needs to be moved. Because Fremantle entered in 1995, using "[location] [mascot]" is especially consistent with the more recent clubs tending to use this format. *Many third-party sources use "Fremantle Dockers": PerthNow, Fox, The West, ZeroHanger, Nine, Seven, The Roar Sydney Morning Herald, ABC. I'm not exactly going to say "Fremantle Dockers" is the WP:COMMONNAME, because the actual COMMONNAME is probably just "Fremantle" or "the Dockers", but those names aren't suitable options. *Fremantle consistently use "Dockers" over "Football Club" in their own branding. It's on their logo, their social media accounts, their official app and so on. *"Dockers" is consistent across time. During their time in the AFL, Fremantle have never been known by a name other than the Dockers. *"Dockers" is consistent across teams. There's no reserves or AFLW team using a different name. And some other notes: *This move request is intended as a warm-up to gauge community sentiment and avoid changing too much at once, not to suggest Fremantle is the only club that needs their article moved. *If this move request succeeds, associated articles with "Fremantle Football Club" in their title (e.g. List of Fremantle Football Club players) should be moved to the equivalent title with "Fremantle Dockers". – Teratix 08:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)MosasaurMosasauridae – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)PantiRory O'Neill – The article is about O'Neill himself, rather than the character Panti Bliss. O'Neill is not trans; he merely has a stage name that he uses in his drag act. In his everyday/business life, he goes by Rory O'Neill and identifies as a man. Panti Bliss is a stage act, which is only one aspect of his life. I propose renaming this article in O'Neill's own name. Gatepainter (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2012 MERS outbreakMERS outbreak – The text of the article is clear that it is about a much longer-lasting situation, with occasional sub-outbreaks, not just something from 2012. The existing text and infobox go to 2021, and sources such as the ECDC show there have been cases as recently as 2023. The existing page by that title is a disambiguation page, however this article clearly is about the entire history of the disease. 2018 MERS outbreak should probably be merged here, as it is short and this graph shows (and the 2018 "outbreak" article itself admits) that 2018 is not distinct from other years. Without that article, there's no reason to disambiguate the 2015 South Korea outbreak article, any more than we do for various "COVID-19 pandemic in X country" articles. Crossroads -talk- 21:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC) (fixes Crossroads -talk- 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • (Discuss)NovogrudokNavahrudak – Belarusian is the native language of Belarus, so the name should be transliterated from that native language. --W (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ShrovetidePre-Lent – This article was originally named 'Pre-Lenten Season' and this is what it describes. It was renamed 'Shrovetide' in 2016, based on a single reference that gives an incorrect definition (Gardner 2008). Shrovetide is however only the final three days of this period: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'The period comprising Quinquagesima Sunday and the two following days, ‘Shrove’ Monday and Tuesday'. Shrovetide is identical to Carnival, which already has its own article. The pre-Lenten period is variously called 'pre-Lent', 'pre-Lenten period', 'pre-Lenten season', 'Septuagesima—Sexagesima—Quinquagesima', 'Septuagesima', 'Gesimatide', 'weeks before Lent' and probably other things – since it isn't a proper season, it doesn't have a formal name. (Cf. 'Vorpassionszeit' in German, 'Domenica di Settuagesima' in Italian.) 'Pre-Lent' is the most descriptive and neutral name that I can find in current scholarship, but I can see arguments for some of the other labels. AndrewNJ (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). AndrewNJ (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Emily Austin (journalist)Emily Austin – Current page for "Emily Austin" is a redirect to "Emily Austin Perry". Since the beginning of the year, the journalist averages 359 page views (median of 212) and "Emily Austin Perry" averages 18. The journalist should have the base, non-disambiguated page name with a hatnote to "Emily Austin Perry". Debartolo2917 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Debartolo2917 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Teatralna Metro StationTeatralna (Sofia Metro) – This article, created in 2020, is about the station in Sofia. Disambiguation is necessary because there are two other articles about metro stations that share the same English name as this one, one in Kyiv and the other in Dnipro. Note further that a disambiguation page already exists at Teatralna. Due to a previous bad page move of the Dnipro one, there was even a silly situation for more than a year where there were articles on two different stations occupying "Teatralna Metro Station" and "Teatralna metro station" respectively. After moving, the origin "Teatralna Metro Station" could redirect to the existing disambiguation page at Teatralna. Astro.furball (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on GazaAttempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza – As above. The actions taken by Israel over the last few months amount to, at very least, an attempted genocide. The number of those killed by Israel is now over 30,000 - more than a few "confirmed" genocides on the list of genocides - and Israel shows no sign of stopping their genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. The list of war crimes is only increasing, and if things continue the way they are, it will eventually amount to a total genocide of the Palestinian people. As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative, and must show the facts for what they are. Israel has openly declared its intent to destroy Gaza, and by displacing millions of people, moving them further and further south, to then continue to bombard areas they declared as "safe" is nothing short of barbarianism. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza. This is not particularly refutable, hence I did not see the move as "controversial", as [edit: it fits the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention definition of a genocide]; there is no other way to describe what is currently happening. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Edward V of EnglandEdward VBackground: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion. Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Genital modification and mutilationGenital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bojana (river)Buna (river) – Buna/Bojana is a river which flows from northern Albania to the Adriatic Sea. Half of its course is entirely within Albania and in the next half, it forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. Arguments in favor of a move to Buna: *Per WP:COMMONNAME: Google Scholar: **5.940 (Bojana) **9.260 (Buna). I searched for other variants and added some additional qualifiers to remove results for the name Bojana instead of the river, but the overall ratio doesn't qualitatively change. The name Buna is used more frequently than the name Bojana. *Per WP:NCRIVER: If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name Buna is entirely within Albania and half of its course forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. The name Buna is used for all sections of the river, while the name Bojana only for part it. *Per WP:UEGN: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names. The local name for over 98% of communities living along the Buna is Albanian both as an official and as a local name. Bojana is used as the official name in Montenegro, but Ulcinj municipality is an Albanian minority area. As such, both Bojana and Buna are co-official in the section which forms the border with Montenegro.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Oil Lamp FragmentOldest depiction of a menorah – "Oil Lamp Fragment" is a very generic "name" which doesn't seem to be in use as the name of this fragment. Wikipedia shouldn't invent new names for things which lack a name, but instead use a descriptive title. I had moved an older version of this page to Oldest depiction of a menorah without a redirect (as I consider it a very unlikely search term for this specific object), but it was recreated. I would suggest to move this over to the new name, without a redirect from the current name. Fram (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)High TensionHigh Tension (2003 film) – There are a considerable number of other targets at High Tension (disambiguation). Per WP:NOPRIMARY the dab page should be located at High Tension and not the 2003 film. I further note that this film has been released in English on DVD/Blu-Ray under two different titles, High Tension and Switchblade Romance so the naming convention in English isn't consistent. This further demonstrates that this is not the primary target for High Tension, and for this reason I would also support a move alternative to Switchblade Romance which has no competing titles, or simply using the original French language title, Haute tension. A further point to consider, High Tension could become a redirect to high voltage as the primary target as "Extra-High Tension" or EHT is a common measurement in electricity. There are several options here. Either way, the 2003 film should be moved. 4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Snake (video game)Snake (mobile game) – This article is exclusively about the Nokia mobile phone version of Snake as invented by Taneli Armanto. Having this article at Snake (video game) gives the impression that Armanto invented the entire Snake game concept, while in reality he only invented this particular version, and the Snake game itself precedes it by decades. Checking the list of incoming links reveals dozens of incoming links referring to the concept of the Snake game itself, not to Armanto's version. JIP | Talk 09:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Snowy Mountains AirportCooma–Snowy Mountains Airport – Page was moved to this namespace by an autoconfirmed user in good faith per WP:BOLD under the rationale of WP:COMMONNAME. I disagree with this move and would like to seek WP:EDITCON for reasons stated below: *Under private ownership, this airport has been branded as "Snowy Mountains Airport", However, most sources actually cited as references in the article, both current and historic, refer to either Cooma Airport, or Cooma - Snowy Mountains Airport. Of the 14 sources currently referenced, only 2 refer to the airport exclusively as "Snowy Mountains Airport" and these are self-published by the airport operator, suggesting a rebranding for promotional reasons which may raise issues with WP:PROMO. *Although Google does return more hits for the specific search term "Snowy Mountains Airport" than either of the above, I note many of these results still preface this with "Cooma" when viewing where the term actually appears in the text, including 3 of the top 10 matches. *The Qantas booking system was using "Cooma" as the destination as of last season (although marketed as flights to the Snowy Mountains). *As a pilot who has operated to this airport, all radio calls, flight planning documents and associated navigation are referred to as "Cooma". *Disambiguation - Originally, the public airport was referred to as Cooma Airport, the Snowy Mountains was added to differentiate it from the private Cooma–Polo Flat Airport, which was historically the base for the Snowy Mountains Authority's aviation ops to a network of airstrips throughout the Snowy Mountains. Although historic, there was a period of time where Polo Flat was colloquially known as the Snowy Mountains Scheme Airport (or just "Snowy Airport" or other iterations) while the public airfield was just "Cooma" airport. Discarding booking engine type search results and considering those with actual content that is of encyclopedic interest, it is possible that many search results for "Snowy Mountains Airport" may be referring to Polo Flat or other SMA airstrips. - This is certainly the case when using search engines such as Trove. Although the change to the name was only minor, I believe that it is detrimental to the article, however it would be appropriate to add a "nativename" field or such in the infobox, or provide this clarification in the lede. Dfadden (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Anne, Queen of Great BritainQueen Anne – "Queen Anne" is by far the most common way to refer to her. Yes, there were other Queen Annes, but they were either only consorts (i.e. Anne Boleyn) or they were obscure leaders of non-Anglophone countries. In English, the British monarchy is by far the most commonly discussed monarchy, so on English Wikipedia, it's entirely appropriate for the only Queen regnant named Anne to be "Queen Anne". "Anne, Queen of Great Britain" gets me 67,400 google results. "Queen Anne" gets me 28,000,000. She was also not just the Queen of Great Britain, she was also Queen of Ireland (and Queen of England and Scotland up until 1707), so let's ditch this inaccurate, awkward, uncommon title in favor of the more common and accurate way of referring to her. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Frederik IX of DenmarkFrederik IX – He's the only monarch with this exact name, so we should move per WP:PRECISE, and the move will make the article title consistent with his daughter and now his grandson, whose name is spelled without the C. Векочел (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: A mistake on my part in saying Frederik IX was the only monarch with this name. He is the only king with this exact name. Векочел (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

References

See also