Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Intrisit WP:NCBC says to use the country alone for disambiguation only when "all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miffedpenguin Titles use sentence case (WP:LOWERCASE), I don't see why this should be an exception. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IUCN Red List calls it "Oxynoemacheilus galilaeus". What gives Eschmeyer priority? The article doesn't even mention Nun galilaeus (except in an infobox and as one of several names in a navbox). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes#Taxonomy Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BarrelProof See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Retry proposal to change the Taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Fishes. This issue has been discussed. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some doubt on their status they should go to a formal RM discussion where all the evidence can be presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru There is no doubt on their status. Previous to October 2024 WP:Fishes used FishBase as the taxonomic source for species and genera, In October 2024 the project changed this to Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (ECoF). This was discussed and agreed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Retry proposal to change the Taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Fishes Here is the extract from ECoF for this species.
"galilaea, Cobitis Günther [A.] 1864:493 [Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1864 (pt 3); ref. 13931] Lake Tiberias, Israel [erroneous, should be Huleh Lake, Israel]. Holotype (unique): BMNH 1863.11.3.8. •Valid as Nemacheilus galilaeus (Günther 1864) -- (Krupp & Schneider 1989:379 [ref. 13651]). •Valid as Oxynoemacheilus galilaeus (Günther 1864) -- (Golzarianpour et al. 2011:205 [ref. 31693], Freyhof et al. 2012:307 [ref. 31752], Kottelat 2012:96 [ref. 32367]). •Valid as Nun galilaea (Günther 1864) -- (Prokofiev 2017:252 [ref. 35630]). •Valid as Nun galilaeus (Günther 1864) -- (Bănărescu et al. 1982:23 [ref. 174], Bănărescu & Nalbant 1995:446 [ref. 23187], Prokofiev 2009:885 [ref. 30604], Çiçek et al. 2023:455 [ref. 40601], Saad et al. 2023:10 [ref. 40501], Çiçek et al. 2024:61 [ref. 40789]). Current status: Valid as Nun galilaeus (Günther 1864). Nemacheilidae. Distribution: Middle East: Huleh Lake, Jordan River basin (Israel). Habitat: freshwater."
I am updating fish pages to reflect this change, it is going to be very wearing if I have to go through a discussion for every change like this when it has already been discussed by the Project. Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quetzal1964 The article states that Eonemachilus is a former designation. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes uses Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for its taxonomy below the level of order. SeeWikipedia:WikiProject Fishes#Taxonomy Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bensci54 See also the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Retry proposal to change the Taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Fishes. This issue has been discussed. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bensci54 and BarrelProof, do you still object to these moves? They appear to be backed by recent consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Retry_proposal_to_change_the_Taxonomy_used_by_Wikiproject:Fishes that I wasn't aware of. C F A 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a skeptical question, but I did not object (and I did not move this to the contested category). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there was a discussion related to this request, so I am okay moving these back into the uncontroversial section. If another page mover agrees, they can execute the moves. Bensci54 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be some doubt on their status they should go to a formal RM discussion where all the evidence can be presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quetzal1964: 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 💬 21:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru There is no doubt on their status. Previous to October 2024 WP:Fishes used FishBase as the taxonomic source for species and genera, In October 2024 the project changed this to Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (ECoF). This was discussed and agreed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Retry proposal to change the Taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Fishes Here is the extract from ECoF for this species.
"nigromaculatus, Nemachilus Regan [C. T.] 1904:192 [Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Series 7) v. 13 (no. 75) (art. 20); ref. 15197] Sea of Tien [Tien Chih] [= Dianchi Lake], Yunnan Fu, China, elevation 6000 feet. Lectotype: BMNH 1904.1.26.38. Paralectotypes: BMNH 1904.1.26.39 (1). Original genus is correctly Nemacheilus. Lectotype selected by Kottelat & Chu 1988:68 [ref. 13392]. •Valid as Yunnanilus nigromaculatus (Regan 1904), subspecies nigromaculatus (Regan 1904) -- (Zheng et al. 1989:44 [ref. 21202], Chen et al. 2012:61 [ref. 31907]). •Valid as Yunnanilus nigromaculatus (Regan 1904) -- (Zhu 1989:18 [ref. 17744], Yang 1991:199 [ref. 13585], Ding 1992:490 [ref. 22049], Yang & Chen 1995:23 [ref. 23555], Zhu 1995:106 [ref. 25213], Chen & Zhang in Chen 1998:47 [ref. 23556], Li et al. 2000:351 [ref. 26012], Yang 2013:251 [ref. 32910], Du et al. 2015:254 [ref. 34050], Zhang et al. 2016:149 [ref. 34477], Zhang et al. 2019:354 [ref. 36699]). •Valid as Eonemachilus nigromaculatus (Regan 1904) -- (Kottelat 2012:82 [ref. 32367], Du et al. 2021:318 [ref. 38600]). Current status: Valid as Eonemachilus nigromaculatus (Regan 1904). Nemacheilidae. Distribution: East Asia: Dianchi Lake, Yangtze River basin (China). Habitat: freshwater."
I am updating fish pages to reflect this change, it is going to be very wearing if I have to go through a discussion for every change like this when it has already been discussed by the Project. Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message on the previous mover's Talk page. I'd like to figure out that weird edit summary accusation before performing this move. Toadspike [Talk] 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the recent page move, back to Pont de la Concorde (Montreal)... as far as I can tell from sources such as [5][6][7] it is reasonably common to use the French title in English works. At the very least this merits a discussion. Also, as an aside, I wouldn't support the move suggested here anyway. "Concorde Bridge" can just as easily refer to the bridge in Paris as the one in Montreal, even in English.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

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

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

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 11 December 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 11 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:00, 11 December 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 11 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 21:00, 11 December 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 11 December 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:00, 11 December 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 11 December 2024

– why Example (talk) 21:00, 11 December 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 11 December 2024

– why Example (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 93 discussions have been relisted.

December 11, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Gascon dialect → Gascon (language variety) – The precise classifcation of Gascon is controversial. While most scholars consider it to be a dialect of Occitan, Posner and Sala note that it is less comprehensible than Catalan (which is typically classified separately from Occitan) to other southern Occitan speakers. Moreover, Gascon has a standardized variety, Aranese, with official status in the Val d'Aran region of Catalonia, which differs from the literary standard of Occitan. Kristol 2023 asserts that Gascon was "already considered a specific language in the Middle Ages," and Carles and Glessgen 2024 refer to Occitan and Gascon as "two languages." As the terms "language" and "dialect" are ambiguous and somewhat subjective, linguists tend to circumvent extralinguistic polemics by using the term "language variety" to refer to a linguistic system. By characterizing Gascon as a "dialect," the current title appears to clash with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by favouring a traditional but contested view. The term "language variety" would be a more useful characterization, as it would avoid the use of the ambiguous term "dialect," which tends to evoke social, historical, and political considerations rather than strictly linguistic ones. Conocephalus (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 18:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Afrobeat → Afrofunk – Simply to avoid confusion as Afrobeat and Afrobeats are often used interchangeably. In fact majority, if not always Afrobeat is used to described Afrobeats. Eg. Here where Tems song was described as Afrobeat when it is not. A redirect can be kept however I believe this should not be called Afrobeat and instead be called the more common name. Also if Ngrams says Afrobeat is more common than Afrofunk it should still be moved as that could be pertaining to it's misusage when describing Afrobeats. This0k (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → December 2024 Israeli attack on Syria – The term "attack" (mixed with "strikes"/"airstrikes", a type of attack) is much more common than "invasion" or "incurious". Articles titled "attack" can also be multi-day event, including both ground and air components as set with the precedents of 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel & Attack on Sydney Harbour. Here is a list of sources for "attack", showing a full spread: #The Washington Post – "The attacks drew sharp condemnation from U.N. Special Envoy Geir Pedersen, who called for a halt to the attacks." #The New York Times – "Israel Says It Destroyed Syria’s Navy, Part of Wave of Post-Assad Attacks" #Al Jazeera – "Barrage of Israeli attacks destroys ‘important military sites in Syria" & "“Israel’s attacks on Syria are systematic,” said Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Damascus. “They are aiming to destroy Syria’s defense bases”." #Associated Press – "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Tuesday that his country’s military launched an wave of airstrikes across Syria to destroy the toppled government’s leftover “military capabilities,” and said Israel wants relations with the new government emerging Syria." #BBC – "Syrian media reports say Israeli warplanes have carried out dozens of attacks across the country, including in the capital, Damascus." #BBC – "Israel has confirmed it carried out attacks on Syria's naval fleet." This event is an "attack", not "invasion". In fact, there are very few sources for "invasion". In fact, after several Google searches, the only organization calling the Israel ground operation an "invasion" is The Guardian in a headline ("UN special envoy to Syria tells Israel it must stop airstrikes and ground invasion of Syria"), although, the U.N. special envoy's statement (directly quoted later on by The Guardian in the article) does not actually say the term "Invasion". So, it is obvious "invasion" is not the common-name term, given it appears only The Guardian is using it, in what appears to be editorialized misquoting. With all that, I move we rename the article to "December 2024 Israeli attack on Syria", which encompasses everything that started on December 8: ground operations and airstrikes. P.S. NOTE: "December" is maybe needed due to the Israeli airstrike on Damascus earlier in 2024. Although, it could be dropped. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre → 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria – Consistency. This article should be named like 2024 Homs airstrikes or April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Because these air strikes are organised for enemy sides of the perpetrator's and some civillians killed in those air strikes. This title means that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, therefore we cannot seperate this air strike from other 190 air strikes. All of them are carried out within 2024. The content also mentions the death toll from other airstrikes. Also these airstrikes belongs to Hasakah province, Raqqa province and rural Aleppo. This title mentions 11 civilians in Raqqa province but how about other 6 civillian deaths in Hasakah province? If you look at death toll, military personnels also killed besides civillians and this means that Turkish Air Force didn't target civillians especially. Also it's ridiculous to target little amount of civillians in a village. If Turkish Air Force want to kill civillians, bombing big city centers is more efficient way like Israel did in Gaza Strip. Therefore that title is biased and we cannot named this event as a massacre just for killed civillians because more military personnels killed in these air strikes. Seondly, wikipedia there's a village named Mustariha and it's located at Idlib. However news says it's a village in the suburbs of Ain Issa. I cannot find location of the village. It's very interesting. All in all, this article should be moved to "2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria" However we can use northern Syria but I'm not sure about geographic naming. Note: If the title I propose is appropriate, the content should be revised accordingly, because it gives the impression that the attack was made specifically for this village and targeted especially civillians in this village.--Sabri76'talk 17:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Debbie Mathers → Debbie Nelson – Debbie Nelson is the name her autobiography was published under and is used in the majority of headlines about her death[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] List of results:[29] It appears by far to be her WP:COMMONNAME, with an exception being this Guardian article which refers to her as Debbie Mathers three times (including the title) and Debbie Nelson once. According to The Independent, "She was known as Debbie Mathers at the time of Eminem's birth, but reverted to her maiden name Debbie Nelson after realizing she had become famous through her son’s lyrics."[30], with another article implying she was formerly known as Debbie Mathers.[31] Rolling Stone says she was going by Debbie Mathers-Briggs in the early 2000s[32] which is backed up by a contemporary article by the BBC.[33] Billboard and the BBC use the name Debbie Mathers to caption an image of her in 2005 since that's the name she was using then.[34][35] Miklogfeather (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Makhzumi dynasty → Sultanate of Shewa – or Sultanate of Shoa. This would revert a bold move of 1 August 2022 by Magherbin, who provided an edit summary saying "Most common usage", but did not say what this impression of common usage was based upon. Searching for "Makhzumi dynasty" on Google Scholar yields only 12 results (one of which is a PDF copy of the Wikipedia article), but 21 results for "Sultanate of Shewa" and 23 results for "Sultanate of Shoa". Overall, there don't seem to be very many sources for this topic, and its treatment on Wikipedia seems to have been contentious and heavily influenced by currently banned users, so I suggest exercising caution when interpreting information found about the subject. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nonpartisan blanket primary → Jungle primary – WP:COMMONNAME. Numerous sources call it a "jungle primary" these days. This was discussed about 15 years ago when the article was new and the topic was actually being litigated in the Supreme Court. Long story short, the "blanket primary" was ruled illegal, and the SCOTUS in that ruling did refer to a hypothetical "non-partisan blanket primary" to illustrate what would be likely legal and similar. 15 years later they have made that system and it is usually called a "Jungle primary". We see this even in these old sources on this article, where many of them don't even use the word "blanket" in the whole source. Naturally, "jungle" has not been really liked by proponents, and thus they often times will call them "Top four" or "Top two" primaries, but most instances where that verbiage is favored, they will often early in the source say "also called jungle primary". At least for now, the common sense move here should be to retitle the page to "Jungle primary", until and unless there's a better and more used catchall for the "Top [number]" format. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Killing of Jordan Neely → Death of Jordan Neely – Article title needs to match up to date RS coverage Up to date RS wavers between continuing to present this as a confirmed killing or playing it safe and describing this as a death, without making a direct statement either way on Penny killing Neely. While some RS like BBC seem to adopt the former position, others go towards the latter position, likely because this point was a central area of dispute in the trial, and was part of jury instructions, which in turn led to a not guilty verdict. RS coverage of this issue typically steers away from taking sides on either affirming the Medical Examiner's position that it was a homicide or the Pathologist testimony casting doubt on that finding. Examples of RS that carefully attribute claims of what caused Neely's death rather than readily describing it conclusively as a killing, and typically utilize the terms "death" over "killing" include: The New York Times: Over the course of the trial, Mr. Penny’s legal team has pushed back at the assertion that their client’s restraint was the cause of Mr. Neely’s death. And the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely was central to the monthlong debate between the prosecutors and defense lawyers. Associated Press: Contradicting a city medical examiner’s finding, a pathologist hired by the defense said Neely died not from the chokehold but from the combined effects of K2, schizophrenia, his struggle and restraint, and a blood condition that can lead to fatal complications during exertion. ABC News: The city's medical examiner concluded Penny's chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system. A number of talk sections have raised the issue of this wiki article's title being inappropriate. Given the coverage of the most recent RS in light of new details from the trial, the right move would be to play it safe like many RS are doing now and label this as a death and attribute the claims of its cause, rather than affirmatively describing this as a killing. Even sources that otherwise use language that describe the death as a result of Penny's actions, like the aforementioned BBC article, decline to conclusively take the side of the medical examiner or the pathologist when focusing on the specific topic of cause of death in detail. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gaza Strip famine → Famine in the Gaza Strip – Feedback from the recent AfD was that the article definitely needs to stay, but it could make sense to change the title. The vast majority of this article discusses the ongoing crisis and the imminent threat of potential famine in Gaza, but not an actual famine that has occurred. No official organization has declared a famine, and the few claims of actual famine that have been made at various times have generally been individuals expressing their personal opinions in informal statements such as television interviews. Reliable sources overwhelmingly do not characterize the situation in Gaza as a famine, nor do they use the phrase "the Gaza Strip famine"; this is strong evidence that "Gaza Strip famine" is not the appropriate common name for this topic. Many reliable sources use some variation of "famine in the Gaza Strip"[37][38][39] (in the context of the risk of impending famine). This wording is much more appropriate for the WP:SCOPE of the article, which focuses on the current conditions, people's reactions, and the imminent threat of famine. There is also precedent across Wikipedia, in other instances of ongoing food security crises that haven't been officially declared famines, to use the title "Famine in...", such as Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present) and Famine in Yemen (2016–present). I propose we follow that format here as well and rename the article Famine in the Gaza Strip. Stonkaments (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Quinn brothers' killings → Murder of the Quinn brothers – Garfield Gilmour was convicted of murder, therefore the page should be titled as murder, not killing. While his conviction was downgraded to manslaughter, it was not because the crime was not deemed to be murder; rather it was because he had only driven the killers to the scene, and the court found that he himself did not have murderous intent, and was not aware that the others did.[2] However, the actual bombers were found to have acted with murderous intent (by using a larger than usual bomb that would be expected to cause death or grievous bodily harm), therefore the crime should be considered a murder.--Tulzscha (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story. The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true. So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Folk baroque → Chamber folk – As Chamber folk redirects here, the name should be changed as that is the common wording used in articles and not folk baroque or even baroque guitar. I'm not saying it isn't used but not as often as Chamber folk. It is also a genre and should be treated as such therefore the article will need to be edited to showcase that but as this l8nks to multiple articles that say Chamber folk, including Windswept Adan, this currently featured article I don't see the point of keeping it as Folk baroque. This0k (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War → Threatening statements in the Russo-Ukrainian War – The name of this article and the use of "red lines" elsewhere in this article is misleading and a personal feeling of the article creator. Looking at Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian red lines the table includes 24 supposed "red lines" with links to sources included. The sources for these 24 "red lines" do not at all support the claim that the 24 items are "red lines": they are simply "threats", "demands" or other statements from Russian officials, and the term "red line" is not even mentioned by Russian officials. The article begins by an explanation of the term "red line" but then it goes on to list any "threat" or other "demand" as a "red line" without any support for the claim that it is a "red line". It is as if any news article that included the words "red line" is used as a source. A correct source would include a direct quote from a Russian official that includes the words "red line" -- otherwise it is just a "threat", "demand", or other statement, etc. Along with the article name all the "red lines" not supported by primary sources, direct quotes from officials, etc. should be changed to "threats" or other more accurate words. Examples of misleading use of term "red line": * Note 46: ** Used as a source for "red line": "Not to supply Patriot Missile system" ** The source does not support the claim of a "red line" at all, not even a simple threat, it only includes a statement from Russian official. All it includes is: "Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned NATO against providing Ukraine with Patriots and denounced the Atlantic alliance as a “criminal entity” for delivering arms to what he called “Ukrainian fanatics.”" * Note 36: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/ ** Used as a source for "red line": "No long-range missiles" ** This article does not even mention the term "red line". It simply includes threats from Vladimir Putin such as: "If longer-range missiles are supplied, "we will strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting," Putin told the Rossiya-1 state television channel in an interview." * Note 39: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-tanks-macedonia-thanks/31976738.html ** Used as a source for "red line": "No supplying old Soviet tanks to Ukraine" ** The source only lists a vague statement from Russian official: "On August 3, Russia said it considered North Macedonia's donation of T-72 tanks to Ukraine "a major mistake that will only help the criminal actions of the Kyiv regime."" * Note 48: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/20/europe/russia-warning-f-16-jets-ukraine-intl/index.html ** Used as a source for "red line": "No F-16 fighter jets" ** The source lists only a garden-variety threat: "Russia’s deputy foreign minister has warned Western countries of “enormous risks” if Ukraine is provided with F-16 fighter jets, Russian state media TASS reported Saturday." * Note 32: https://www.evelyn.com/insights-and-events/insights/will-markets-take-the-strain-from-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/ ** Used as a source for "red line": "NATO troops and missiles to be withdrawn from Russia's western border", "NATO to stop eastward expansion and reverses back to position in 1997". ** The source does not support this claim, it only lists "demands" of Vladimir Putin along with the word "red line": "Putin has issued three key demands to Western powers, marking his red lines in negotiations. First, he demanded that Ukraine should never be allowed to join NATO. Second, the organisation should halt its eastward expansion and roll back to its position in 1997." There are many more similar sources that do not support the claims in this article. If these listed "red lines" are supposed to be "red lines" based on the sources cited then any simple threat, demand, etc would be a "red line". It is as if this article is trying to conflate "red lines" and any threatening statement from a Russian official. Bluikkso (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – HomeKit → Apple Home – Proposing page be renamed Apple Home to reflect the name of the platform, whereas the current name (HomeKit) is one of two supported software frameworks that work inside the platform. The intro sentence should also be rewritten to something like "Apple Home is a smart home platform that uses the HomeKit and Matter software frameworks. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Gay sex roles → Top, bottom, and versatile – This article was moved from Top, bottom and versatile in 2022 by another editor without discussion. As the previous RM has shown, the current title is not ideal, and the proposed title in that RM was also imprecise, since these roles can also apply to heterosexual or lesbian couples as per the sources in the article, so I suggest moving the article back to the original title. Alternatively a merge with Top, bottom, switch since a lot of the topic really has an overlap and I think could be explained in one article could also still be a viable option, which just needs to explain that sometimes the terms are used purely as a sexual position, and sometimes in more of a BDSM context, noting we do have Dominance and submission that goes into more detail about that as well already. Raladic (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Backbone → Backbone (disambiguation) – I am reopening this move discussion as I disagree with the previous rationale for withdrawing it. Even if it is not primary by pageviews, it is easily primary by longterm significance. The original meaning is obvious: back + bone, bones in the back of an animal. Backbones have existed for eons, while computers have not. Apple does not go to the software company either, and suggesting backbones, a major part of human anatomy, are equivalently primary to a bunch of wires and a router is ludicrous to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – In Search of Lost Time → À la recherche du temps perdu – This is the most common name for the work in English-language scholarly sources; it is the name by which this book is best known; and "In Search of Lost Time" is the least common of the three common names in English sources (with "Remembrance of Things Past" being the more common English translation. Previous arguments against this move argued that Wikipedia's strict input made using diacritics impractical; that was in 2010 and this problem no longer exists; as such, we should move to the most common name in English sources per WP:UE. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 7, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Anita White → Lady A (singer) – The controversy doesn’t preclude us to have two articles with the same title. The two entities clearly use the same name professionally so why should their articles not reflect that. She clearly uses her WP:NICKNAME professionally so it must be the name of her article. The band, however well-known only used the name recently so WP:RECENTISM is a factor. There is absolutely no reason why the two artists can’t share a name especially since they have settled it in a lawsuit. There is clearly WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC with the name Lady A since the singer has used the moniker longer but since the band is more popular. Theparties (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FirstGroup Plc - Agreement to acquire RATP London" (Press release). Aberdeen: FirstGroup. 10 December 2024. Retrieved 10 December 2024 – via Financial Times.
  2. ^ Man cleared of NI brothers' murder
  3. ^ Financial Times search results for "assisted dying"
  4. ^ BBC News search results for "assisted dying"
  5. ^ The New York Times search results for "assisted dying"
  6. ^ The Washington Post search results for "assisted dying"
  7. ^ The Globe and Mail search results for "assisted dying"
  8. ^ Sydney Morning Herald search results for "assisted dying"
  9. ^ [1]
  10. ^ The Irish Times search results for "assisted dying"
  11. ^ [2]
  12. ^ Daily Nation search results for "assisted dying"
  13. ^ South China Morning Post search results for "assisted dying"
  14. ^ The Hindu search results for "assisted dying"
  15. ^ Times of India topic page for "assisted dying"
  16. ^ New Straits Times search results for "assisted dying"
  17. ^ Bangkok Post search results for "assisted dying"
  18. ^ Philippine Daily Inquirer search results for "assisted dying"
  19. ^ Jamaica Gleaner search results for "assisted dying"
Sincerely, AndAllForWhat? (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Emma Dumont → Nick Dumont – Although I have proposed a reverted move, I want to first acknowledge that I recognize this is a difficult situation; I also accept the article being at either name. Typically, a celebrity coming out as transgender / non-binary would prompt WP:DEADNAME, meaning we should immediately move the article to the individual's correct name. However, as is discussed in the sources available at this time, Dumont's representative has stated, “Their work name is still going to be Emma Dumont, but they will go by Nick with friends and family" ([49]). As such, this is not a typical case, and I do not believe it is appropriate to immediately assume this article should be listed under one name or another. Importantly, although Dumont has updated their name and pronouns on Instagram, they have not changed their social media handles or made a public statement regarding their preferences. Although I wish Dumont could speak to this issue directly, I believe it is valuable to discuss as a community. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – O-Negative (1998 film) → O-Negative – Option A: The capitalisation and hyphenation of the titles are adequate distinction of the topics, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Each page should have a hatnote linking to blood type and the other film. The redirects can be speedy deleted as G6. Option B: The details are too small for distinction, and the blood type is the primary topic for all capitalisations. The hyphen is adequate disambiguation between the films, which should have hatnotes linking to each other. Option C: The details are too small for distinction of all these topics, and the films also need disambiguation against each other. Option D: The hyphen is too small a detail but capitalisation is adequate to indicate either of the films as the intended topic. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC), 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cabinet of Germany → Federal Government of Germany – "Federal Government of Germany" is the natural, precise, concise and above all consistent title. On the other hand, "Cabinet of Germany" is not commonly recognizable and not a title that readers are likely to look or search for if they wanted to find the German government.[1][2] Furthermore, the current title is colloquial and legally (see Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, sixth section, "VI. The Federal Government") and technically incorrect. The title also differs from all other search engine results on this topic and the official website itself[3].

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Federal+Government+of+Germany%2CCabinet+of+Germany&year_start=1840&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false#
  2. ^ https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Cabinet%7CGovernment
  3. ^ https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en
— Essixt (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of census divisions of Ontario → List of administrative divisions of Ontario – 95% of this article content is *about* administrative divisions, not about census divisions, and I'd argue that administrative divisions are a lot more important than how the census is subdivided. Currently the page *lists* census divisions but categorizes them by their form of administration which is strange, and leads to confusing results for Brant/Brantford and Haldimand/Norfolk. A separate page about census divisions could also be created although I think just specifying within this page where there are differences would be sufficient. Somatochlora (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. charlotte 👸♥ 20:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Scotch Tape → Scotch tape – The brand trademark is just "Scotch", while "tape" is just a description of what kind of product it is. The company that makes this always puts the registered trademark symbol "®" next to "Scotch", not after "Tape". The company also tends to often put a collection of other words between the "Scotch" and the "Tape", and often overcaps everything with title case (as in "Scotch Brand Tape" and "Scotch Magic Tape" and "Scotch Masking Tape" and "Scotch Heavy Duty Packaging Tape"), but the capitalization of "tape" isn't always practiced by other sources, per this Ngrams comparison, which shows "Scotch tape" is the most common form. Ngrams for usage in longer phrases are shown here, here, and here. The logo has "Scotch" as a single-word logo very separate from the product type description on the labels. Similarly, "Magic" is also a trademark in this context and consistently has a trademark symbol "™" next to it, but the product is simply the Scotch brand of tape, and the "Scotch" is the only trademarked part of it, so this is sort of like "Ford automobile" or "Remington rifle" or "Rolex watch". The brand is simply "Scotch". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – E& → Etisalat – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Etisalat is the most commonly used name of this company with titles of new articles relating to the company within the country it functions in (the UAE) seen in this article title, this, and this, to give a few examples. They changed their name from Etisalat to e& in 2022 but Etisalat remainds the most commonly used name, like how Twitter remains so instead of being renamed to X. The nominator of the previous move discussion also mentioned supporting a move to Etisalat (being the most commonly used name) in their nomination. The articles linked by nominator supporting the move to e& all refer to the company as formerly being named Etisalat, similar to how majority of News organisations say "X (formerly Twitter)" again supporting Wikipedia's common name policy. jolielover♥talk 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Orphism → Orphism (disambiguation) – This page is the primary topic, by both measures at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and those at WP:DPT). This Orphism clearly far outstrips the art movement in terms of long-term significance. The pageviews indicate that, over the last year, this page on average received between four and five times the monthly views of Orphism (art), and WikiNav indicates it received twice the number of hits from the dab page last month. Furthermore, in Google Books and Google Scholar searches almost all results are for this Orphism, with only the odd result being for the art movement. With respect to the current disambiguator, the idea that Orphism can be summed up, in a word, as a "religion", is, to put it lightly, very out of date (probably by about 100 or 150 years). Nor, in the modern conception of "Orphism", is there really any clear or meaningful definition which can be ascribed to the word. In M. L. West's words (The Orphic Poems, p. 3): As for 'Orphism', the only definite meaning that can be given to the term is 'the fashion for claiming Orpheus as an authority'. (Note that the view of Orphism presented in the current article is itself pretty out of date.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 1999 Seattle WTO protests → Battle of Seattle – I'm opening a discussion for moving this title to "Battle of Seattle", as I believe it to be the common name for these protests. For years, this is the name by which I've heard these protests described. This appears to be born out in the sources too, as Google Scholar search results give 5,800 results for "Battle of Seattle";[59] while "Seattle WTO protests" gets only 659 results.[60] I can understand why the "Seattle WTO protests" title was used, as it sounds more dry and descriptive. But going by common name policy, I think "Battle of Seattle" is probably what we should be using for this. So as this is a potentially controversial move, I'm opening a discussion here. What are your thoughts on this? Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Võro language → Võro dialect – A dialect and regional standard of South Estonian per sources. The article might originally have been intended for the whole language, but now we have a separate article for that. 'Voro language' is either a synonym of South Estonian, or [as in this article] specifically Voro dialect, often as the standard of South Estonian. The ISO code [vro] is for South Estonian / Voro-Seto, not just Voro dialect. The target has a page history as a duplicate article, which might be moved to Voro dialect [without the diacritic]. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). — kwami (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

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

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Slop (artificial intelligence) → AI slop – (New move request reopened to fix capitalization from "AI Slop" to "AI slop") When the term "slop" is used to refer to low-quality AI content it usually is called "AI slop". Most of the sources this page cites follow this naming convention. Searching for "slop" on the aggregator Google News and Hacker News also show this pattern. I'd estimate 80% of the usage of the term in online circles is "AI slop", 10% call it "slop" but mention "AI" later in the sentence (in cases like headlines), and 10% just say "slop". "Slop" is occasionally used to reference any low-effort, low-quality, and repetitive content, including YouTube videos ("YouTube slop"), video games ("live service slop" / "AAA slop"), and streaming videos ("slop media"). In these cases it's similar to the term "brain rot", though the term "slop" seems to be more focused on the quality of the content where "brain rot" is more focused on its psychological impact. Distantstarglow (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge → United States support for the Khmer Rouge – Reopening discussion. According to the above backlog, editors have overwhelmingly voiced support for the requested move. I fail to understand @Estar8806's decision to close the discussion and sideline the consensus that is apparent. As I wrote him on this user talk: Multiple statements in the article are factual and undisputed and correspond to US support of the Khmer Rouge: 1) U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam. = diplomatic US support 2) I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could. = diplomatic US support has admitted by a member of the then US government (quoted here from the NYTimes source of ref 20) I will not even go on investigate the claims of political scholars quoted in the wiki article since this much is already tantamount to US support. NokGradten (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hiawatha (train) → Hiawatha (MILW train) – These paranthetical names aren't quite as clear and precise as they can be since multiple other trains have used these names throughout their history. The simple parenthetical "(train)" isn't really enough to distinguish these different trains from each other. The first article is solely about the multiple trains operated by the Milwaukee Road which predate the current Amtrak train along the corridor of the same name. The name could be changed to "trains" to indicate the multitude of different trains covered in the article. The Amtrak/Via Maple Leaf isn't the only named train with a termini in Toronto, especially the historical Lehigh Valley Railroad train, which also ran to New York City, albeit with a different alignment. The name of the article could also be changed to maybe "Amtrak/Via", but the train from my understanding is moreso grouped with Amtrak. The Amtrak Palmetto is the successor of the ACL train of the same name. The fourth article is about a completely unrelated historical ATSF train operating in California separate from the current Amtrak train. The Wolverine is also the name of a historical New York Central Railroad train. Nonetheless, I don't necessarily believe in these names as final as I want them to be subject to change, and not all of them need to be implemented. I will say that if we decide that the simple parenthetical of "(train)" is sufficient in describing the articles in question, then perhaps instead the article titles for the Amtrak Pere Marquette, Silver Star, and Valley Flyer could have "Amtrak" dropped from their parentheticals for naming consistency across all Amtrak train articles. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
21:00, Wednesday, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1259148558"