Wikipedia:Requested moves

Closing instructions

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: 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 users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the top of the list, filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page 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

Administrator needed

Put requests that require an administrator (e.g., because the page to be moved is move-protected or the target is creation-protected) here. Do not place a request here if it only requires a page mover.

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|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 NewName 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 27 September 2021" 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 article:

Note: 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)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that 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 articles, 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, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

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.

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 27 September 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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 27 September 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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 27 September 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021‎ (UTC)[]

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 27 September 2021

– why Example (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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 27 September 2021

– why Example (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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 can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, 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 discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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.

Current discussions

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. 75 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

September 27, 2021

  • (Discuss)Mary II of EnglandMary II – Mary II already redirects here. And given that she was equally, Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, "Mary II" would be a better and more neutral title. Peter Ormond 💬 05:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Helsinki-päiväHelsinki Day – "Helsinki-päivä" is not a proper name as such, instead it literally means "Helsinki day". The English version of the official site calls it "Helsinki Day". The English Wikipedia should use English names for events if they exist. JIP | Talk 03:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 26, 2021

  • (Discuss)Lake TaupoLake Taupō – Initiating a move request per the above conversation to get input. Given that the settlement on the shores of the lake uses a macron (Taupō) and that the Māori names for the lake are Taupō-nui-a-Tia and Taupōmoana, it stands to reason that the name of the lake should also have a macron on the ō. It is worth noting that, while the lake doesn't have an official name at all, the unofficial name recorded by the NZ Geographic Board is Lake Taupō / Taupōmoana. While it is true that WP:NZNC only specifies that we must use a macron when one is in the official name, I think that - given all other instances of the word use Taupō over Taupo - there are sufficient grounds to also move the name of the lake. This is also consistent with the recent shift in New Zealand English to use macrons on Māori words where they are required. Turnagra (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)List of coupled cousinsList of coupled first cousins – The result of the deletion discussion (see top of page for link) and other discussion strongly suggests that this page be restricted to first cousin marriages or else the next deletion request will likely result in it being deleted. Given that, the name of the page should reflect what it is restricted to hence adding "first". Some people might feel that replacing coupled with married might also be appropriate Erp (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 25, 2021

  • (Discuss)Daytona 300 (NASCAR)Daytona 300 – I don't think the word "NASCAR" is needed in parenthesis in the article title since there's no other race at the track that has the number 300 in its title. Cavanaughs (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Daniel BryanBryan Danielson – Given the continued failure of anyone to explain why WP:NAMECHANGES should not apply to this circumstance (and noting that WP:NAMECHANGES is explicitly a subsection of WP:COMMONNAME and that attempts to pit the policies against each other are nonsensical), and that mainstream sources have consistently used the new name since he debuted for AEW ([4] [5] [6] [7] this page should be moved unless someone can present an actual policy-based account for why it shouldn’t be. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Winter's Tulpa (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Elk (sculpture)Thompson Elk – This one's a bit difficult because the subject has many different names. However, I believe "Thompson Elk" is the best compromise. This very recent source says the sculpture is officially known as "Elk Thompson Fountain", but the statue is not currently a fountain and there are many other sources which use other names, so I'm not sure this title should be used per COMMONNAME. Sources using "Thompson Elk" include The Oregonian, KOIN, Portland Mercury, etc. But, I admit, someone could cherrypick sources to advocate for a handful of different titles. Perhaps other editors have a more systematic way of determining the best possible title? Help! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Ticino LeagueLeague of Ticinesians – "Ticino League" is a wrong translation of the original name and it has not a so wide diffusion in the sources to justify a wrong title. "League of Ticinesians" seems to be a better translation and it is also used in a number of sources. Another possible translation is "League of Ticinese People", but this translation is very little diffused. Otherwise it would be better to have the original name of the party as title (Lega dei Ticinesi). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Animal rights and the HolocaustAnimal holocaust – The term has become more widely used over the last 20 years or more, not just informally but in academic literature beyond just "animal rights" activism, e.g. in philosophy [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Move would create a clearer differentiation of the use of the word for the Shoah, so as to be less offensive. Current title & tone of page is somewhat article like, rather than an encyclopaedic definition. For the sake of discussion, although I consider the above to be the best option, another alternative might be Holocaust (animals) inline with the other related topics on the disambiguation page.

References

  1. ^ The Invisibility of Evil: Moral Progress and the ‘Animal Holocaust’, Philosophical Papers, Volume 32, 2003 - Issue 2 [1]
  2. ^ If a Holocaust Survivor Can Admit There's an Animal Holocaust - We Can Too, Eyal Megged, Haaretz, May. 14, 2015 [2]
  3. ^ Animal Holocaust, Cohn-Sherbok D, Linzey A, Palgrave Macmillan Limited (1997)
  4. ^ How to Do Animal Rights by Ben Isacat (2014)
  5. ^ The Step Back: Ethics and Politics after Deconstruction, David Wood, SUNY Press, 1 Jan 2005
  6. ^ Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2011
  7. ^ The Holocaust and the Henmaid's Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities, Karen Davis, Lantern Books, 2005
  8. ^ Pushing the Limits of Humanity? Reinterpreting Animal Rights and “Personhood” Through the Prism of the Holocaust, Journal of Human Rights 5(4):417-437 October 2006
--Iyo-farm (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)2020 Calabasas helicopter crashKobe Bryant helicopter crash – In the last requested move, this title was brought up, but was never seriously considered because it wasn't the focus of the discussion. I was one of the editors that supported moving the current name. However, I believe "Kobe Bryant helicopter crash" is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. Kobe Bryant helicopter crash gets a little over 3 million hits on Google, while the current name gets a little shy of 300 thousand. Additionally, this title would be consistent with titles such as John F. Kennedy Jr. plane crash. Overall, Bryant's name should be mentioned since this article would not be notable without him dying in the crash. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 24, 2021

  • (Discuss)K'gariFraser Island – The official name of the island has recently changed, following years of movement in this direction. However, it is unclear whether the common name has yet followed, with some reliable sources published after the official change still solely using "Fraser Island", while most of the rest are using both. A discussion is required to determine the validity of the move, particularly in the context of WP:CRYSTAL, and the principle that Wikipedia is a lagging, not leading, indicator. I am unable to do this move myself, probably due to edits made to the redirect page now at "Fraser Island". BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Yi Pei ChiYi Peiji – Although Who's Who in China 4th ed. romanizes this name as I Pei-chi, and I have located sources that give the name in other romanizations, namely Yi P'ei-chi and Yi Peiji, I believe Yi Peiji is the best choice per WP:ZHNAME, because I don't see evidence that non-pinyin spellings are more common. The current title is definitely not a common spelling. But since other spellings do exist, I was unsure if this move was suitable for WP:RMTR. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Richard J. GordonRichard Gordon (politician) – This man is never referred to as "Richard J. Gordon", with the middle initial. Either it's "Richard Gordon", "Richard 'Dick' Gordon" or "Dick Gordon", with preference to the first option. Now, checking Richard Gordon, there are at least a couple other politicians named "Richard Gordon", but neither are referred to as such, one is called "R.H. Gordon", while the other is "Rich Gordon", the Richard Gordon of this RM is never referred to by these names. Most of the references in this article refer to him in any of the three names I shared. This guy can claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over "Richard Gordon (politician)"; in case that's disputed, we can use "Richard Gordon (Filipino politician)" or "Richard Gordon (politician, born 1945)". Compare Richard J. Gordon vs. Rich Gordon. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)Sri Sri Ravi ShankarGoogle search engine results of "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" are more than 64,80,000 and if we consider the other name "Ravi shankar (spiritual leader)" it has just 9,23,000 results. the news section brings justice to both the names since "shri shri ravi shankar" has around 51000 results while "Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)" has only 6290 results. so clearly "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" should be the name of article as per WP:COMMONNAME and "ravi shankar (spiritual leader)" should be put as redirect to the page. One more thing to be considered, some might argue that "Ravi Shankar" should be the article name as it has the highest results with around 7,99,00,000 results in random search and around 34,80,000 results in news section. but this name can't be put alone because there are many famous personalities with the same name "Ravi Shankar" like former IT minister of india and also one more famous personality is there with same name, he is a indian composer. so we can't use this name in its raw form, we have to use "small brackets" and put some information about him like "spiritual leader" or something, but that "small brackets" names are not suitable according to WP:COMMONNAME. so i think "Shri Shri Ravi Shankar" is the most suitable name. Please argue accordingly. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Third English Civil WarAnglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) – The rationale is discussed at length above. To summarise: this conflict was not exclusively English, and it was not a civil war. It followed on from the English Civil War, but it was fought between the (then independent) countries of Scotland and England, and resulted in the imposition of military rule on the former by the latter. I have been unable to find any reliable sources from a relevant discipline that call it the Third English Civil War; there was a time in the last century when it was often referred to as the Third Civil War (in the context of the 'British Civil Wars', not the 'English Civil War'), but that was never universal (plenty of leading scholars of the last century did not refer to it in those terms). Around the turn of the century, the use of the term Third Civil War has been criticised: John D. Grainger wrote in 1997 that the term "Third Civil War" was "a complete misnomer". Austin Woolrych wrote that it was "seriously misleading" to call it a civil war in 2002. Malcolm Wanklyn (Emeritus Prof of History at Wolverhampton) wrote that the "so-called Third Civil War" was "nothing of the sort" in 2006. The use of that term to describe the conflict has almost completely stopped, with very few sources from this century using the phrase; those few sources that continue using it appear to be doing so for convenience - I have seen no modern sources at all that actually assert that it was a civil war, and none that contest the criticism the term has attracted. While it is possible that 'Third Civil War' might once have been a COMMONNAME, that is no longer the case; 'Third English Civil War' was certainly never a COMMONNAME (and 'English' is not a natural disambiguator in this case). While it may be convenient for us to have a widely recognisable name to apply to this article, we can use redirects to help with searches for such a phrase, and I believe that it is contrary to the interests of this project for us to use a name that is anachronistic, and which leading scholars in the field have criticised as being actively misleading. As an indication of why titles like this cause actual harm, take a look at this Google NGram. The sudden uptick in uses of the phrase 'Third English Civil War' exactly corresponds with the year that this article was published under that title. We should be reflecting the language that the best sources use, but here we seem to have invented a phrase that is affecting how some people write. A lot of Google's hits are Wikipedia mirror sites and student dissertations, naturally, but a few of them are actually scholarly articles written by people from different disciplines who have a one-off need to refer to the conflict - I assume that these non-experts are drawing on our article as a convenient resource, unaware that we are misleading them about how their colleagues who are experts in the period actually refer to it. I wish that there was a commonly-agreed upon COMMONNAME title used by scholars that I could hang my hat on for us to change to, but there is not: scholars nowadays refer to the conflict descriptively, using a range of different phrases. Two of the sources discussed above use the phrase "Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652)", which I believe is neutral and accurate - it is probably the approach we should take. Gog the Mild, MichaelMaggs and Slatersteven have all explicitly supported this phrasing above, and nobody has proposed an alternative, so I am proposing that we move the article to this title. Girth Summit (blether) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Jackie Robinson (statue)Statue of Jackie Robinson – 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) 15:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Mukhya UpanishadsPrincipal Upanishads – The main language of Wikipedia is English. It would make the most sense to have the article's name in English, especially if it is referred to within the first line of the article. Raps19 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 23, 2021

  • (Discuss)Mike PolchlopekBart GunnWP:COMMONNAME. He is best know to the people as Bart Gunn. Despite working under other names, he worked as Bart Gunn during the Attitude Era and the New Generation era. Also, recently he appeared at Dark Side of the Ring and was credited as Bart Gunn. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)List of political ideologiesList of ideologies – Renaming this to "List of ideologies" will allow for more freedom in what is included, without lengthy debates on which ideologies are political and which are not. It will also remove the need for an expert in politics to review the article, which means that there will be one less problem to solve. Heythereimaguy (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)CsangosCsángós – Seems to be the correct name of this people. We already use diacritics for the article Székelys and would consider "Szekely" incorrect and fix it, so I don't see why this would be any different for the Csángós. Context for people without knowledge of the area: the Székelys and the Csángós are Hungarian subgroups outside Hungary, the first lives in Transylvania and the second in Moldavia, both in Romania (which is divided into three regions, the third being Wallachia). By the way, it isn't like Csangos is some kind of compromise for the Romanians, it is still pretty much the same name as the Hungarian one. For all of this, I see no reason for keeping this name without diacritics. For those wondering about what do reliable sources say, results are mixed [18]. I see Csángós more often than Csangos though. Also note the category of this people uses diacritics. Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Islamic State's Central Africa ProvinceIslamic State – Central Africa Province – This article was held back from a series of page moves executed by Amakuru after an WP:RM closed on Talk:Islamic State due to opposition from Applodion. This is very inconsistent, and consistency is one of the five article title criteria. I argued that the aim of consistency is above even the most common name found in the sources, given the existence of Islamic State – West Africa Province, which Applodion supported. The difference between an 's and an en dash () is not major, and the abbreviation IS–CAP already given in the article clearly points to at least some acceptance of en dashes. This page is the odd one out, the only one that isn't either Islamic State – X Province or Islamic State in X. The 's is not mandatory and doesn't appear in sources as often as it does appear, as well.[19][20][21][22]. Therefore, endorse move as nominator. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Alpha-olefin sulfonateΑ-Olefin sulfonate – Since the previous RM discussion (above), there has been discussion at WikiProject Chemicals about how to handle article titles for compounds with Greek letter prefixes and as a result the naming conventions were updated. Accordingly, this page should be moved to allow for use of {{lowercasetitle}} to properly display the title as α-Olefin sulfonate. I bring to RM since there was certainly past uncertainty about the name. If for some reason there is not support for the indicated move, a move should at least be made to the proper form of the current name, Alpha-Olefin sulfonate (prefixes are not capitalized, but must be for Wikipedia page names; the first non-prefix letter should be capitalized as well according to the naming conventions). Note: The proposed move target has a Greek capital alpha, not a Latin capital A; this is important for lowercasetitle to work properly. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Aatami (magazine)AatamiAatami is currently a redirect to Adam (given name). Aatami is a Finnish translation of Adam, however, they are still different names. Not a single entry on the disambiguation page Adam (given name) is named Aatami. Therefore Aatami should be about the magazine unless we find enough people named Aatami (not Adam) to create a new disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Dr DisrespectDrDisRespect – The basis for my suggestion of this move is the discussion that took place above on the talk page here[23]. As well as the fact that one of the it fits on of criteria for article titles, namely precision. The discussion fell to the way side, and it was never done. Thank you for your time, and consideration. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)SportsNet New YorkSNY – SNY is not referred to as Sportsnet New York by the network or by viewers. They don't advertise that name. For ease of use SNY should be SNY on Wikipedia, matching up with on air branding and advertising. This matches up with WP:Criteria naturalness. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Killing of Tessa MajorsMurder of Tessa Majors – Tessa Major's "killing" has been reported as a murder in every outlet, local and national, that has reported on the matter. Previously, arguments claiming to sound in BLPCRIME argued that reliable sources were wrong to use the term "murder," and therefore we should not utilize reliable sources and instead defer to "courts of law." These misgivings were unreasonable in that they were wrong as a matter of Wikipedia policy, and wrong as a matter of common sense. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to second-guess reliable sources. Regardless, even these misguided legalistic objections should be satisfied, given that individuals have now pleaded guilty to her "murder." There is no purpose in maintaining the "Killing" title any longer. Consistent with other articles covering high-profile murders, a move is in order here.... Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Siege of PetersburgRichmond–Petersburg Campaign – This article is really about the campaign, which according to the National Park Service stops a few days before the siege ends (in the beginning of the Appomattox Campaign). So naming it after the siege becomes very confusing, when that is just the central feature of the campaign. I am indifferent as to whether campaign should be capitalized; it is in some Civil War campaign articles and not in others. –CWenger (^@) 01:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 22, 2021

  • (Discuss)Pagan KingdomBagan Kingdom – Bagan has been submitted to UNESCO as Bagan and not as Pagan. Scholarly[1] articles also have shifted towards newer names, especially in the case of Bagan because of the similarity between Pagan and the word pagan. Original discussion relied on both not being in a standardized romanization. Consistency should be with other articles like Bagan and Early Bagan Kingdom not with a standardized romanization 'Purgam' which is unused and hard to recognize. Pagan Kingdom may be the name used by old official sources but Bagan is a more WP:COMMONNAME and is also used by newer reliable sources, news and in general.

References

  1. ^ Aung-Thwin, Michael (2018). Bagan and the World: Early Myanmar and Its Global Connections. Singapore: ISEAS. ISBN 9789814786027.
EmeraldRange (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)José Abreu (first baseman)José Abreu – Looking at the articles listed on José Abreu, it appears clear that the White Sox first baseman is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, especially since the three non-baseball players have similar but different article titles; eg, the Venezuelan composer's references refer to him as "José Antonio Abreu". So, really, this means that the White Sox first baseman is the primary topic over the Negro leagues infielder. The new dab setup doesn't work, anyway, as a first baseman is also an infielder. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Alex Pereira (kickboxer)Alex Pereira – The kickboxer is the primary topic with 300 daily views per day not counting the surge in views from his recent signing to the UFC. The footballer gets 0-1 views and the other two people Alex Pereira Soras/Lopaz do not generate views, but can be put on the disambiguation page that will be put in the hatnote of "Alex Pereira", the kickboxer, should this be approved. Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Man-hourPerson-hour – Trying this again as, if this would be based on ghits it seems like the latter has more results now since 2013, so it's now this site lagging behind the trends... 92.0.5.48 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)HushpuppiRamon Abbas – While the term "Hushpuppi" is commonly used in article headlines, the body of the article almost without fail uses "Ramon Abbas" to describe the individual, such as the BBC, CNN, and the National News. Further, the individuals enduring notability is likely to be due to their criminal and alleged criminal activities, not due to their social media presence, making their social-media handle less common as time passes. BilledMammal (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 21, 2021

  • (Discuss)ICloud leaks of celebrity photos2014 celebrity nude photo leak – I suggest moving this article to "2014 celebrity nude photo leak" because the current title, "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" implies that 1) iCloud was involved in all the photos leaked (a reading of the article reveals they were not), and 2) that the article deals with all iCloud leaks of celebrity photos regardless of when or how they happened, when the article is actually specifically only about the "mega-leak" popularly dubbed "The Fappening". NEOGEO6 (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Accrington/Rossendale built-up areaAccrington/Rossendale Built-up area – Proposing these two as test cases: if these moves are agreed then we can move all other cases of these two capitalisations to "Xyz Built-up area". I propose this because it is the form used by ONS, and it indicates that we are not just talking about the area perceived to be built up, but a specific unit defined by ONS as the "Built-up area". The capital "B" avoids ambiguity. We have at present a mix of the three capitalisations, and consistency would be better. There is a further question as to whether "Xxx Urban area" and "Xxx urban area" should be moved and edited to "Xxx Built-up area", to be discussed separately. PamD 21:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)US 25US 25 (disambiguation)U.S. Route 25 should be the target of US 25 as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The road receives over 10x the page views as the Yacht page. Move to the disambiguation qualifier and then retarget the resulting redirect to U.S. Route 25. A {{redirect}} hatnote will suffice at the road article for anyone using this search term who seeks the yacht content. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Jennifer Dunn (politician)Jennifer Dunn – The current page Jennifer Dunn is a disambig page for the former member of Congress and the musician who is the member of Mindless Self Indulgence. The article for the musician was merged into the article for the band several years ago. I do not see any additional articles for other people named Jennifer, Jenny, or Jennie Dunn. So, the politician from Washington State should be the primary Jennifer Dunn, and should not have the parenthetical disambiguator. We can still have a hatnote at the top pointing to the band. Let's discuss as needed. KConWiki (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Minor planet designationMinor-planet designation – Per WP:HYPHEN. Following our guidelines at the MOS, "minor planet designation" would be a minor designation of planets, "minor-planet designation" a designation of minor planets. People often claim COMMONNAME for things like this, but we generally allow the MOS to determine issues of formatting like hyphenation except when a phrase is fully lexicalized (like "high school"). That's not the case here, and in any case it appears that the hyphen agrees with IAU and MPC usage. The MPC seldom bothers using the phrase; in context, they just refer to "temporary/permanent designations". The full phrase generally only appears when a contrast needs to be made, as here in the IAU/MPC naming guidelines, where they disambiguate minor-planet designation/number from comet designation/number:  :4.4 If the minor-planet designation was published before the realization is made that the object is a comet, the comet will retain the minor-planet designation. Otherwise, a new comet designation will be assigned.  :4.5 If the object receives a permanent minor-planet number prior to its recognition as a comet, it shall be accorded "dual status". As such, it both retains the permanent minor-planet number and receives a new periodic-comet number. Here, discussing those guidelines, and here, discussing Pluto, they have hyphenated "minor-planet designation", "minor-planet number" and "permanent-number designation". But sometimes they omit the hyphen (one instance of 'minor planet number' on the Pluto article); they're occasionally inconsistent with hyphens in other phrases as well. Such instances appear to be typos that just need a bit of copy-editing. Again with the comet-designation contrast here, 'Accessing Comets with Minor-Planet Designations'. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 20, 2021

  • (Discuss)Battle of MarawiMarawi siege – The battle has never been referred to the proper noun "Battle of Marawi" prior to the move of this article. I suspect support for the move was largely due to a common naming schemes for contemporary skirmishes here in Wikipedia (and nowhere else) such as the Battle of Raqqa (2017), The skirmish has been continued to be referred to as "Marawi siege" by WP:RS when searching through google using "Marawi rehabilitation", "Marawi Maute", "Marawi ISIS" – since using both "Battle of Marawi" and "Marawi siege" as search terms would skew results. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)AllahabadPrayagraj – Per above discussions in favour of motion, I'm finally proposing name change of this article. There are ample reliable English foreign news sources now that establish the city's common name as Prayagraj as cited already. Tecumseh*1301, JayPlaysStuff and Rohit klar you may wish to move your comments in this appropriate section. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 17:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)DTC -Yukemuri Junjou Hen- from High&LowDTC: Yukemuri Junjo Hen from High & Low – The first official release of this film in the US, UK or Australia was on Netflix, on which it is titled DTC Yukemuri Junjo Hen From High & Low. Going on the naming conventions for films, the article title should be based on that, though corrected to indicate divisions between parts of the title and use standard English title caps, hence DTC: Yukemuri Junjo Hen from High & Low. Though it might be argued it should be DTC: Yukemuri Junjo Hen from High&Low for consistency with other articles about the High&Low franchise, the titles of the films are all written on Netflix as High & Low, and the release of the films on Netflix is the first release of any video content in the franchise in what English Wikipedia defines as "the English-speaking world". Tempjrds (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Yolanda MontesTongolele – This move was also discussed and done on the Spanish Wikipedia as seen here - [28] with this name she is way better known by her followers and is faster to locate her. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Aleister Black → ? – I believe this wrestlers WP:COMMONNAME should be reverted back to Tommy End. His Twitter is @TommyEnd, he wrestled for 15 years across the globe as Tommy End, and when he came back to AEW they called him Tommy End at first, because the announce team was unsure of his new ring name. If we use the model set by Miro and Christian Cage, at minimum his name should change to his new ring name Malakai Black. Bes2224 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Lauda (airline)Laudamotion – I have seen everywhere and the common name for the airline is Laudamotion and not Lauda. I can see only a handful saying Lauda and the majority of it is Laudamotion. This also follows WP:COMMONNAME. Even though the branding changed, it was still called Laudamotion. Username006 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Periyar E. V. RamasamyPeriyar – The subject is commonly known as Periyar only, EVR is a distant second. Considering Wikipedia has a clause called WP:COMMONNAME, I am a bit shocked that such an obvious move was not performed so far. Yes, it is an honorific title, but the move is within under WP:TITLESINTITLES. Quite unsurprisingly, Wikipedians have referred to him as Periyar throughout the article, although the norm is Ramasamy should have been used instead since the title goes by so. This unequivocal, although subconscious, preference by Wikipedians to Periyar to me seems like a strong reason as to why Periyar alone should be considered the common name and thus be moved fittingly. Appu (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)NEC Software SolutionsNorthgate Public Services – A recent request was posted in bad faith at WP:RM/TR styled as an "uncontroversial technical request"[29] As a result, move warring ensued, and the page is currently move protected in its current from. The move request essentially seeks consensus to either move the page back to it's former name, or keep the page as it is currently titled. May we achieve that consensus in the spirit of collaboration and the discipline of collegial good form? --John Cline (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)National Intelligence Organization (Turkey)National Intelligence Organization – I think we should remove the name Turkey in brackets because there is only one other organization with the same name. For other countries' intelligence agencies which has the same name as an other countries agency, the bigger agency just have their name without country name in Wikipedia. For example you can look at Federal Intelligence Service. There are two agencies with the same name, one Swiss and one German. Since the Swiss one is not as significant as the German one, the German one have the title in Wikipedia. A similar case is present here in my opinion. Katakana546 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Wide Open SpacesWide Open Spaces (album) – This article is not properly shown as the primary topic on the associated DAB page, and I am wondering if it really should be a primary topic, with only around 100 views on a good day? There is also Wide Open Space (now with hatnote redirect), so I'm wondering if one DAB page should capture both of these forms, which could be easily confused, I would think. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)N. R. Narayana MurthyNarayana Murthy – As per WP:COMMONNAME. No matter how you look at it, Narayana Murthy is the common name. It should be obvious and unanimous. Barely are there any sources cited in the article that don't refer to him as Narayana Murthy Appu (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Appu (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Najwa GhanhemNajwa Ghanem – All sources I have seen spell her name as Najwa Ghanem and not as Ghanhem. Even in her own book "Growing up Bin Laden", she is called Ghanem. Therefore I suggest the article be moved to the redirect Najwa Ghanem. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Paul the ApostleSaint Paul – I outlined my rationale for this move in the discussion above, though it was too late to properly discuss it. Per Ngram it's quite obvious how much more common it is to refer to Paul as a saint than an apostle. The usage of "saint" is certainly a moot point (e.g. this move discussion on Saint Peter) but as in many other articles there comes a point where the familiarity of a name overwhelms the need for absolute neutrality. I don't think many readers will get the feeling that we're endorsing the sainthood of Paul by referring to him by what the vast majority of popular and academic resources–Christian and non-Christian–refer to him by. GN-z11 05:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)BDO World Darts ChampionshipWDF World Darts Championship – With the WDF World Championship appearing to be a continuation of the former BDO World Championship, it makes sense that the article should be re-titled and transitioned over to being used for the 2022 edition. The WDF has made the history of the BDO-era the history of the new WDF championship, and noting that the BDO-organised event was WDF-sanctioned. The venue returning to the Lakeside and the WDF-affiliated tournaments that serve as the events that count toward the World Rankings and automatic qualification for the WDF World Championship being part of the same structure that led into the BDO World Championship also help make the tournament be a continuation of the BDO version and not a whole new event. SportResarcher (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Peter William CrowleyPeter Crowley – Procedural request, for User:Jburke2005. Requested at RfD (wrong forum) here with this rationale: "I propose that the redirect from Peter Crowley to Peter Crowley (Gaelic footballer) should be deleted. I intent to change the title of the article Peter William Crowley to "Peter Crowley", however, I cannot do so, as the redirect still exists. Peter William Crowley is notable as one of the world's longest hunger strikers, and I wish to change his page name to "Peter Crowley", as that is what he is referred to as in various documents, and in the media." Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Giant hutiaHeptaxodontidae – There are only 34 hits for "giant hutia", but over 150 for Heptaxodontidae in G.scholar. The made up vernacular is much less used by experts then Heptaxodontidae and WP:COMMON/WP:FAUNA dictate using the most oft used unambiguous term--Kevmin § 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
5.129.59.116 (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Akhil AmarAkhil Reed Amar – The article was most recently renamed "Akhil Amar" in 2015 due to "common usage". From 2006-11 it was "Akhil Reed Amar", 2011-13 "Akhil Amar", 2013-15 with "Reed" again, and finally "Akhil Amar" since 2015. However, "Akhil Reed Amar" is the more common name; it has nearly 272,000 google results compared to "Akhil Amar" with only 39,000. Additionally, all of his books include his middle name in the author field. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Bayraktar Tactical UASBayraktar UAV – Bayraktar is a family of UAVs produced by Baykar. While they started to build the UAVs only in tactical class, overtime they started to make MALE and HALE class UAVs. Due to this reason, it is not reasonable to still keep the name Tactical in the title. It also says UAS insted of UAV; while this is technically true, nobody including the news agencies use the word UAS, instead they use UAVs which is also true. So, I think it would be best for this article to be moved to "Bayraktar UAV" Slh7477 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Verizon 200Brickyard 400 – This article should be focused on the race that took place on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway oval from 1994-2020. It should be moved back to it's common name, and info about the new-for-2021 race on the IMS road course should be split into it's own article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)WION (TV channel)WION – WION is a english news channel like BBC and CNN for example. we can see CNN or BBC neither of them is titled as "BBC TV channel" or "CNN TV channel" so i think fundamentally these type of pages should be titled with their name only. According to WP:COMMONNAME, common name should be used as title of article, so if we consider a random search engine result we can easily see that "WION TV channel" with around 1,10,00,000 results is not the common name when compared to "WION" with around 1,44,00,000 results. but still i guess some might not agree with me, so i would to attach one more proof of "news" section results. with 1,07,00,000 results "WION" is the real common name when compared to much lower "WION TV channel" with around 7,41,000 results only. and ya i know "WION" name is already in use for disambiguation page. so my take on this is, if we reached to a consensus to use "WION" as article's title so we could change that disambiguation page's title to "WION (disambiguation)". thank you. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)School strike for climateSchool Strike for Climate – The title should be capitalized as it is a proper name. It would be one thing if the article were referring to just any school strike for climate, but this article refers to a specific movement roughly from 2018 to 2020. The phrase was coined by Thunberg and used as a name for the movement-- therefore, it should be capitalized. (Not to mention all names of the movement are already capitalized in the lead) ~BappleBusiness[talk] 06:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Mohammed OmarMullah Omar – Mullah Omar is by far the WP:COMMONNAME for Mohammed Omar. According to Google Trends [32] the term "Mullah Omar" by far surpasses the name "Mohammad Omar" or "Mohammed Omar" since Google first started keeping track of searches, and the term "Mullah Omar" is closely correlated to the topic "Mohammad Omar", meaning that people searching for "Mullah Omar" are likely to be searching for Mohammad Omar. Additionally, Google ngrams [33] shows that the term "Mullah Omar" is used at a rate several times greater in print sources than "Mohammed Omar" and a variety of other spellings of that name, and this has been a consistent trend since 1997. While "Mullah" is a religious title, we generally include religious titles in article names when they are a part of the common name for the subject, like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Teresa. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)PredestinationPredestination in Christianity – The concept of "predestination" occurs in multiple religions, it is not exclusive to Christianity. We already have an article on Predestination in Islam. Although Christian and Muslim beliefs on this topic are not identical, you can find a lot of scholarly literature in comparative religion, etc, comparing and contrasting their respective beliefs on the same topic (see e.g. Google Scholar). There are also comparable beliefs in other religions (such as the ancient Greek belief in Moirai) and some work in comparative religion has compared those beliefs to Christian/Islamic concepts of predestination as well. Therefore I propose the main article, Predestination, should consider the concept of "predestination" from a comparative religions viewpoint, providing a brief overview of the views (or range of views) in each religion on this issue, and relying on those scholarly sources which discuss the similarities and differences between doctrines of predestination in Christianity, Islam, and other religions. And then we can have sub-articles Predestination in Christianity and Predestination in Islam to cover each of those religion's views on this topic in more detail. (There is probably not enough material to support such an article for any other religion at present, but that could always change if someone found sufficient sources to set up such an article for a different religion). This would require deleting the existing redirect Predestination in Christianity to here (which I assume requires administrator assistance), and then after moving this article to Predestination in Christianity we can create a stub here for Predestination across multiple religions, and then we can work on fleshing out that stub into a proper article. The current situation, where we have an article called plain Predestination about Christianity, and one called Predestination in Islam about Islam, is not treating Christianity and Islam equally, it is a Christian-centric approach. (I'm not suggesting there has been any deliberate intention here by anyone to treat the two religions unequally–sometimes these situations can just happen by accident.) Mr248 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Template:OTRS talkTemplate:Ticket talk – Per the OTRS to VRT migration, we can no longer use the acronym "OTRS" for legal reasons. Other templates, such as {{OTRS ticket}} have already been moved. RM because this might be controversial, and tbh I don't really like the name "Ticket talk", feel free to suggest a better name. — Berrely • TalkContribs 09:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ( ) 11:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Possibly incomplete requests

References


See also