Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

  • Salumi → salume (currently a redirect back to Salumi) (move · discuss) – Singular form. JackkBrown (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem uncontroversial - salumi has much higher usage than salume.[1] And probably matches the usual salami rather than salame too.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: all right, but "salami" (English word; in English the plural is mostly used for some foods, and I still don't understand why; e.g. "panini") in Italian is "salame", while the singular of "salumi" is "salume". JackkBrown (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • W. D. Gaster → W.D. Gaster (currently a redirect back to W. D. Gaster) (move · discuss) – The name of this character is W.D. Gaster without a space between W. and D. It looks like there's a space because in Undertale a period takes up the same space as any other character. Diamantinasaurus (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Diamantinasaurus Wikipedia standard is to put spaces after periods in initials. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Initials. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     01:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (not opposing (or supporting)) Is it strange to think MOS:INITS applies even to a fictional character? (An initial is capitalized and is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien).). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other aspects of Wikipedia styling conventions are certainly applied to fictional subjects – for example, there's the WP:TITLETM example of Invader ZIM → Invader Zim. Considering fiction an exception seems like it would lead to all sorts of randomness. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judicial disqualification → Recusal (currently a redirect back to Judicial disqualification) (move · discuss) – Most common term for this concept, most accurate term for this concept since the article and the idea is not limited to justices, and 4/4 editors on talk page so far agree Superb Owl (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Object to speedy move I think this should have a discussion, since recusal is not restricted to this judicial sense. If it moves to recusal, the article would need a rewrite to make it more generalized. -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a section entitled: Administrative agency and other matters. I agree the article needs to be rewritten, but do not see the harm in having an article entitled 'recusal' that, for the time being, largely focuses on judges? Seems a bit of a chicken and the egg situation when the move performed in 2007 (by a banned editor with no consensus at the time) should never have happened and if it hadn't, the article would have a wider array of examples in it. Superb Owl (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the word 'disqualif...' is used only 17 times in the article vs. 61 for 'recus...'. Full case for recusal can be found here. Superb Owl (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • RAF Saxa Vord → RRH Saxa Vord (currently a redirect back to RAF Saxa Vord) (move · discuss) – It is referred to as RRH not RAF PAWPERSO (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sourcing demonstrating that the proposed name is more common would be useful here. It seems like both names are in use.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • RAF Neatishead → RRH Neatishead (currently a redirect back to RAF Neatishead) (move · discuss) – It is referred to as RRH not RAF PAWPERSO (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justine (de Sade novel) → Justine (Sade novel) (currently a redirect back to Justine (de Sade novel)) (move · discuss) – In the French naming custom, the particle "de" is not part of the last name and shouldn't appear when the first name or a title doesn't appear, e.g. Guy de Maupassant's last name would be Maupassant, etc. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to match common English usage. For example Charles de Gaulle is always De Gaulle, not Gaulle. Britannica also uses De Sade.[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spencer Dickinson (politician) → Spencer Dickinson (move · discuss) – Moved the page originally called "Spencer Dickinson" since it was just some random stub with 3x less pageviews per month, however the move left behind a redirect page so I cannot move this page. SusImposter49 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's a strong enough argument to declare the politician to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the music project. That music article could be expanded, and the current name-only redirect could become a new disambig page, IMO. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a dab at the base page name purely as a procedural matter to avoid WP:MISPLACED while this technical move request is being discussed. I have no opinion on the primary topic. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 10 June 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 10 June 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 10 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 03:54, 10 June 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 10 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 03:54, 10 June 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 10 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 03:54, 10 June 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 10 June 2024

– why Example (talk) 03:54, 10 June 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 10 June 2024

– why Example (talk) 03:54, 10 June 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. 55 discussions have been relisted.

June 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – The Weekend (SZA song) → The Weekend (song) – clear WP:PRIMARYPDAB, there are no other notable songs titled "The Weekend," making the inclusion of the artist's name unnecessary for disambiguation. The song by SZA is the most recognized work with this title, ensuring no confusion would arise from the change Other songs that share their titles with less common names or phrases often follow this simplified format. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 01:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Isaac Charles Parker → Isaac Parker (Missouri judge) – These articles were both moved to their current location back in August 2020, from "Isaac Parker" (which has since become a dab page) and "Isaac T. Parker" respectively (the latter move probably for consistency), by the same user (Hhfjbaker, hereby notified). In many of the articles linking to these two Isaac Parkers, the links are piped like [[Isaac Charles Parker|Isaac Parker]] and [[Isaac Thomas Parker|Isaac Parker]] respectively, which leads me to believe that both men went by just "Isaac Parker". Now, per WP:MIDDLENAME ("Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised."), we're not supposed to use middle names/initials to disambiguate unless the middle name(s)/initial(s) is part of the WP:COMMONNAME. So, what is their WP:COMMONNAME? Given the piping pattern above, I'm inclined to believe that it's "Isaac Parker" for both men. I'm open to the idea that former (the "Hanging Judge") is the WP:PRIMARY, but I'll go for disambiguators for both articles for now. Note: Older sources often refer to people using their full name, but that was their way of disambiguating people. Should we follow that, or should we treat each on a case-by-case basis? HandsomeFella (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Blue Dragon → Blue dragon – I request that the video game be moved back to its former location, as it is clearly primary for the capitalized version of the phrase and is the only thing that is not a WP:PTM with any major views. The other similarly named articles are only adaptations. It is not primary for the uncapitalized version due to the various forms of sea life also called "blue dragon", but WP:DIFFCAPS specifies that capitalized and uncapitalized titles can coexist without requiring disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kidnapping of Noa Argamani → Noa Argamani – The article is not primarily about the kidnapping, but about her as a person who was kidnapped. One one of the paragraphs talks about her kidnapping. The rest is the negotiations, her rescue, and information about her background. Its much more of a person article than an event article. TimeEngineer (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jutes → Jutes (tribe) – I'm requesting for the above articles to be moved to their respective new titles because the word 'jute' and name 'Jute' and their respective plurals are a bit ambiguous; the word 'jute(s)' (with a lowercase letter 'j') refers to a certain fibre material, while the name 'Jute(s)' (with a captial 'J') refers to an ancient Germanic tribe (with a capital 'J'), while their plurals refer to their respective topics, with a lowercase letter 'j' and capital 'J', respectively. PK2 (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fraser Island → K'gari – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. While this is a contentious topic and it has been just under a year since the most recent move request, I believe it is time to finally make this change. Since the island was officially renamed to K'gari in June 2023 the new name has been overwhelmingly used in sources that talk about the island. I have manually assessed each result in a google news search for both names since the change took place (there have been a lot of dingo attacks...). Of the 353 results, 317 primarily use the name K'gari, and a further 30 either use a dual name or use K'gari equally with Fraser Island. Only 6 sources used Fraser Island on its own, indicating a clear preference for the new name in news sources posted after the name has been changed. Crucially, the preference for the new name is strong across all sources, and in international examples - it's not just one or two outlets frequently posting and skewing the results. Many of the articles do mention that Fraser Island is the former name, but this is typically a passing reference in an article that otherwise demonstrates a preference for K'gari. I also manually assessed google scholar results for this year, and after filtering out a lot of false positives, duplicates, and sources which only had the names used as part of the references (mostly Google getting caught out by authors named K. Gari) I was left with 42 articles. Interestingly, an equal number used K'gari as used Fraser Island (15 each), with 7 either using a dual name or using the names an equal amount. However, the majority of articles were passing references which used the island as a navigational point (eg. "the coast north of K'gari") or as one of several locations (eg. "Specimens were found in the Blue Mountains, the Whitsundays, and Fraser Island"). Articles which focused primarily on the island itself tended to use K'gari, with the total count of references for each name across the academic sources coming in with K'gari at 230 vs. Fraser Island at 69 - again, indicating a stronger usage of the new name. WP:NAMECHANGES states that If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The above unambiguously demonstrates that sources written after the change routinely use the new name, and make a strong case that the WP:COMMONNAME of the island is now K'gari - which we should reflect. The most recent move closure saw that usage had shifted and there were grounds to move as of July 2023, but that scholar sources still used Fraser Island predominantly. This has now shifted, with usage even stronger in favour of K'gari. I would also note (as I have seen it come up in previous moves) that the sources used in this are reliable, English sources - WP:USEENGLISH states that we should use the name used in English sources, not that the name needs to be English in origin. As such, the proposed title is still compliant with that. Turnagra (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Liu Chen-san → Liu Zhensan – WP:NCZH: Among recently published works, Liu Zhensan seems to be the clear favorite. For example: * North China and Japanese Expansion 1933-1937 by Marjorie Dryburgh, 2000 * The Organization and Order of Battle of Militaries in World War II: Volume VIII, China by Charles D. Pettibone, 2013 * Germany and Vocational Education in Republican China by Henrike Rudolph, 2022 On the other hand, I was unable to find any recently published books using Liu Chen-san. Google Books results for the name seem all to be irrelevant or false matches. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NY → NY (disambiguation) – When used in an American context, the state is almost always what's meant, since NYC is the typical acronym for the city. Only context I know of which its used for the city is in sports abbreviations (I was going to add "and those I ❤ NY T-shirts" but it turns out those are also about the state). None of the other topics come close in terms of relevance. Mach61 17:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes → 2022 аttack of Azerbaijan on Armenia – I have not seen a single reliable source saying that Armenia attacked Azerbaijan. But multiple reliable sources say the opposite. Various sources describe the events as an “invasion”, “offensive”, “attack”, or “assault.” There is consensus that Azerbaijan was the one who initiated the hostilities. Some talk about “Azerbaijan’s Invasion of Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Offensive on Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Attack on Armenia”, but they all agree on one thing: Azerbaijan was the initiator of the clash, and it was Azerbaijan who attacked. Therefore, the title “Attack of Azerbaijan on Armenia” perfectly reflects the vast majority of reliable sources and is the least ambiguous. I will provide the overwhelming evidence below: * Human Rights Watch:  :“The killings took place during fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that broke out in mid-September, when Azerbaijan made incursions into Armenia...” * Genocide Watch:  :“Azerbaijani military attacks on Armenian territory show Azerbaijani disregard for Armenian sovereignty.” * Freedom House:  :“Freedom House Condemns Azerbaijani Attacks on Armenia”  :“The Azerbaijani armed forces must immediately cease their deadly attacks on Armenian territory” * Axel Gehring, Ph.D., political scientist and expert in the field of foreign and security policy and researcher at the Institute for Critical Social Analysis of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Berlin:  :“On September 13, regular Azerbaijani troops launched a large-scale attack on Armenian territory. This attack took tensions between the countries to a new level.” * Laurence Broers is a specialist in conflicts in the Transcaucasus, founder of the scientific journal Caucasus Survey:  :"Azerbaijan's recent attack seeks to enforce terms in negotiations with Armenia" “ The recent large-scale cross-border attacks inside Armenia by Azerbaijan...” * Maximilian Hess, Research Fellow for Central Asia at the Foreign Policy Institute, in Foreign Policy magazine:  :“Azerbaijani forces who marched into Armenia continue to occupy part of its territory, in particular heights around the town of Jermuk.” * David L. Phillips, conflict analyst in The National Interest:  :“The United States criticized Azerbaijan's recent attacks on Armenia proper” * European Parliament Resolution:  :“Strongly condemns the latest military aggression by Azerbaijan on September 12, 2022 on the sovereign territory of Armenia”  :“calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, therefore, to immediately withdraw from all parts of the territory of Armenia “ * Wojciech Gorecki, senior researcher at the Department of Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia:  :“in September 2022 Azerbaijan attacked targets located on Armenian territory.” * The Guardian:  : “This week, with attention focused across the Black Sea in Ukraine, fighting on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia killed about 100 troops after Azerbaijan shelled a number of towns in Armenia, with both sides accusing each other of “provocations”.” * Der Spiegel:  : “Peace negotiations mediated by the European Union have been at an impasse since Baku also attacked territory in the Republic of Armenia in September 2022.” * TIME:  : “...democratic nation that was recently invaded by its authoritarian neighbor”  : “...but also Armenia, which has been suffering from Azerbaijan's invasion for almost three weeks now.” * BBC:  : “I don’t think anyone doubts that Azerbaijan started this operation on the territory of Armenia. Even Azerbaijani commentators admit this. Armenia is currently weak, has little interest in disrupting the status quo.” * Eurasianet  :"Azerbaijan launches large-scale attacks on Armenia"  :“Azerbaijan launched a large-scale attack on targets in Armenia, an unprecedented expansion of the long-running conflict into Armenian territory.” * Michael Rubin, senior researcher at AIP:  :“Last week, Azerbaijan attacked Armenia proper. (Last week Azerbaijan attacked Armenia directly)” * Paul Stronski is a senior fellow in the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Programs, specializing in Russia and the South Caucasus:  : “..the fact that Russia is preoccupied, certainly led to what looks like an Azerbaijani offensive at this time”  : “And what we even saw just in the last few days is actually attacks inside and shelling inside cities inside Armenia, not just along the border." * Kapil Komireddy, political columnist for The Telegraph:  : “But so little about Azerbaijan's attack, which goes beyond the disputed territory of Karabakh and targets Armenia proper.” *Seth Franzman, Middle East analyst for The Jerusalem Post , contributor to Defense News, The National Interest and Digest of Middle East Studies:  :“Attacks on Armenia represent dangerous escalation” *Carnegie Europe:  :“Nearly 300 soldiers died in a large-scale Azerbaijani incursion into the territory of Armenia on September 13-14.” Vanezi (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Frisco Station → ? – Opening as a procedural matter as article has been moved many times, so we should figure out a stable article title. More details: I granted OrdinaryScarlett's technical move request (permalink) to revert undiscussed moves from the last longstanding title. Usually I would have declined as the last move was in 2023, but this was to correct a misspelling in the article title. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – October 2012 Beirut bombing → Assassination of Wissam al-Hassan – per WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; nearly every article I've seen about this bombing either explicitly mentions Wissam al-Hassan outright, or say that it killed a high-level Lebanese official as a reference to him (with some sources in this very article calling it an assassination). It's pretty clear that this fact is by far the most significant aspect of the bombing, and changing the title to something that mentions al-Hassan would be an easy way to make this article distinguishable from the many other Beirut bombings. XTheBedrockX (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zamina mina (Zangaléwa) → Zangalewa – Every source cited refers to the song as "Zangaléwa", either with or without the accent. I can't find why this page uses the title with parentheses. Although "Zangalewa" is also the name of the band, this song is probably the primary topic since the band's article uses their previous name, Golden Sounds. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 7, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Brodie Lee → Jonathan Huber – I suggest that the article shouold be renamed after the wrestler's birth name, since the wrestler is no longer using his last ring name. (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Chang Hsueh-liang → Zhang Xueliang – TL;DR: According to WP:NCZH, pinyin should be preferred unless a "customary transliteration or anglicization is more common". "Chang Hsueh-liang" is significantly less common in modern, reliable sources, so Zhang Xueliang should be used. None of the reasons in given 2020 to move this page to WG outweigh the importance of using the WP:COMMONNAME. Also, it doesn't seem like the 2020 move discussion was properly closed by an admin. * "He never used Zhang Xueliang during his life": It is quite common to call historical figures by a name they never used. Averroes is known by a name he received from Medieval Christians. Shakespeare never signed his own name with the spelling that we use today. And historians rarely stick to the unsystematized spellings of Chinese names used in the 1800s, even though they were the only romanized names their subjects knew. There are many valid reasons that historians would choose to do this (I'm sure you can think of plenty). It's not Wikipedia's job to second-guess this decision, just to reflect the consensus. *"Sun Yat-sen uses a non-Pinyin spelling": Yes, because the majority of historians continue to spell it that way. If English-speaking historians started calling him Sun Zhongshan, then so would Wikipedia. *"He was a citizen of the ROC/never a citizen of the PRC": There's no hard rule that Wikipedia can't use pinyin to romanize ROC names, or that pinyin can only be used for PRC names. We only treat WG as the default romanization of ROC names in the absence of evidence for a different WP:COMMONNAME. For example, many Taiwanese celebrities are better known in English by an English first name and WG last name, and are referred to as such on Wikipedia. Because there is strong evidence that Zhang Xueliang is the WP:COMMONNAME, his national... affiliation(?) is irrelevant. *"Most of his English-language obituaries used his WG name" This would be strong evidence that Chang Hsueh-liang is the WP:COMMONNAME, expect for the fact that Zhang died in 2001, when many newspapers still used WG for all Chinese names. Take the Guardian obit as an example: it's talking about "Chou Enlai" and "the Sian Incident"! Since 2001, almost all major Enlgish-language publications have come around to preferring pinyin for Chinese historical figures, and this is reflected in the articles mentioning Zhang that have appeared since, such as: [22], [23], [24]. Let's review the evidence that Zhang Xueliang is the WP:COMMONNAME: * Google ngrams shows that Zhang has been more common for over two decades, and the gap is widening * There are a number of recent books that deal heavily with Zhang; almost all use pinyin for his name: ** Zhang Xueliang: The General Who Never Fought (2012) ** The Making of China’s War with Japan: Zhou Enlai and Zhang Xueliang (2016) ** War and Geopolitics in Interwar Manchuria: Zhang Zuolin and the Fengtian Clique During the Northern Expedition (2017) ** The only exception I know of is The 1929 Sino-Soviet War: The War Nobody Knew (2021), but that work shuns pinyin entirely. In my opinion, this makes a clear case to move this page to Zhang Xueliang. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – This word means "freedom" in the original Slavic languages, and while there is a significant usage in Russian and Ukrainian history as well as some usage in modern-day Russian administrative divisions, described at this presumed primary topic, its usage and long-term significance does not actually overshadow the ambiguity over the other uses of the word for the average English reader. In preparation for this move, I went through the list of ~200 incoming links to preemptively disambiguate them. The usage is typically clerical, to explain the strange term, which is most commonly placed in italics. This indicates that the fact that the explanation was directly at "sloboda" was a very easy way to get the etymological explanation. However, that's a possible description of editor behavior, which is not necessarily the reader behavior (WP:RF). It should also be noted that Russian toponymy lists are quite weird from the perspective of a navigation purpose for set indices, with an apparent habit of linking these kinds of terms contrary to what MOS:DABONE would advise. It's not that I'm opposed to having a link somewhere in such a set index to explain the term, but the volume of this skews the statistics. After going through the list, I was left with 19 links (~10%) where I couldn't identify a clear connection to this particular subject. Mostly they seemed to be generic references to the Slavic word for "freedom". This also extended to Russian topics. Some were references to specific places named Sloboda, not the concept. I had also disambiguated numerous others by linking Foobar Svoboda instead of keeping a largely useless partial link (sadly I didn't keep a count of these to be able to note the percentage). A search in Google Books for me does not identify this meaning to be primary - I get more references to people named this way. Likewise for Google Scholar. I don't have reason to believe that this would differ for the average English reader. WikiNav for Sloboda and meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive indicate that the hatnote is consistently one of the most commonly clicked links on the page - even in months where we see a larger readership, it's still among the most commonly clicked links (for example in March '24, with 162 clickstreams to 9 identified destinations, the hatnote was #3 with 17). This is typically indicative of a navigation issue. Another editor reverted the initial preparatory move, thinking this broke links (it did not) and saying this changes a 'long established' status quo - I don't see an actual rationale there. Just because this grew organically as is - doesn't mean it's not subject to evaluation and adjustment. In addition, similar terms like svoboda and swoboda are not short-circuiting here and are indeed disambiguated, so this change would seem to make things more consistent. Joy (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Russian Orthodoxy → Slavic Orthodox churches – I am copying from a previous comment of mine in this very talk page: "As stated in its first sentence, this article deals with "body of several churches within the larger communion of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, whose liturgy is or was traditionally conducted in Church Slavonic language". This grouping of local Churches that use the Church Slavonic is presented as comprising "Russian Orthodoxy". I think this is a misnomer. Please by all means do correct me if I am wrong, but not even one of the sources currently existing in the article use "Russian Orthodoxy" as a term that denotes the Eastern Orthodox Churches that use the Church Slavonic. On the contrary, "Russian Orthodoxy" is a term (unsurprisingly) used to denote the Eastern Orthodox presence in Russia, while, on the other hand, there are quite a few secondary scholarly sources that present the churches using Church Slavonic not as "Russian Orthodoxy", but as "Slavic Orthodox" (and quite reasonably, if I may say so)." I've quoted some cases of scholarly sources discussing the Slavic Orthodox churches in my previous comment, which I am not copying here to save space, but please do consult them above. To repeat myself, "I think it follows that per WP:COMMONNAME this article should be moved to a new title, namely "Slavic Orthodox churches"." Ashmedai 119 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Emirate of Sicily → Muslim Sicily – For two main reasons: * I don't see any evidence that "Emirate of Sicily" is the WP:COMMONNAME here. Ngram suggests that something like "Muslim Sicily" is far more common. The article itself also makes little effort to explain this term and seems to use it only haphazardly. * This article describes the entire period of Arab-Muslim rule in Sicily, and for a large part of that period its status was not an independent emirate, as the article itself indicates. In this context, the title "Emirate of Sicily" is unclear and awkward. "Muslim Sicily" (or equivalent) is simpler, more descriptive, and more neutral with regard to its changing political status. ** Note that we also have an article about the Kalbid dynasty, which should cover the period when the island was indeed de facto independent (after the mid-10th century[1]) and when it can be more accurately described as an emirate (e.g. per EI2[2]). R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tyap language → Tyap – I originally moved this article to 'Tyap' on the 19th of May, but an hour later, an editor reverted that bold and undiscussed move, so I've moved it here instead. Anyway, the reason I'm requesting for this article to be moved to the new title is per WP:DISAMBIG (including WP:ONEOTHER), WP:NCLANG and WP:NCET; because this article is the primary topic with the name 'Tyap' in its title, because there's only one other topic called 'Tyap', the topic about its dialect, which doesn't have enough information to be a separate article yet, because its speakers are called 'Atyap', and because therefore, I personally think there's no point in creating a disambiguation page called 'Tyap' at this stage. PK2 (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Astro Bot (2024 video game) → Astro Bot – There are no other video games titled "Astro Bot", so the "2024" identifier in the article title is certainly not needed. The "video game" identifier could be useful in the future if the series or titular character were to receive their own articles, but as it is now this is the only Wikipedia article for a subject named "Astro Bot" (which currently redirects here anyway). Bingus04 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Objection (United States law) → Objection (law) – Was going to suggest deleting Objection (law) because the titles were not entirely interchangeable and objections are used in other court systems, but I wanted to first see if this article could be rewritten from a more global POV. Even if the rewrite is not immediate, it would allow for the article's coverage to be more comprehensive. Awesome Aasim 02:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wu'erkaixi → Wu'er Kaixi – Wu'er Kaixi is the more common spelling in reliable English-language sources, even though the added space is incorrect in Hanyu Pinyin. See Google Ngram results. Wu'er Kaixi and Uerkesh Davlet are both used by organisations he is affiliated with, but the former has more mentions in reliable English-language sources. Yue🌙 02:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dragon Pool Temple → Yonghwasa – Doesn't appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME, and doesn't abide by WP:NCKO's guidance on temples. Google "dragon pool temple" and "jeju" in quotes using direct matching; no results. The new name I'm proposing is just the transliteration of the Korean name. This name is anecdotally used on this page [35] in the Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture. I can't access the book being referenced, but even if it does use this name, I'm skeptical that that single book can dictate the common name. Probably safer to default to WP:NCKO. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Parachromis managuensis → Jaguar cichlid – So, the last time a name change for this article has been discussed was back in 2007 (see "article title" up above). This article used to be named "Managuense cichlid," but was later changed to the Latin name and current title, Parachromis managuensis, on the basis that it was the least ambiguous epithet for the species. Which is true. Latin names are almost always less ambiguous than vernacular names, but they're almost never as concise or recognizable - for the same reason we have articles named Great white shark and Largemouth bass rather than Carcharodon carcharias and Micropterus salmoides, I'm going to propose that this article be renamed to Jaguar cichlid. For the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness, I present the Google Search results for the names listed in the article's lede (in order from most hits to least): * "jaguar cichlid": ~93,700 results * "parachromis managuensis": ~40,900 results * "jaguar guapote": ~9,680 results * "managuense cichlid": ~8,720 results * "guapote tigre": ~8,640 results * "aztec cichlid": ~4,090 results * "managua cichlid": ~1,470 results * "spotted guapote": ~812 results "Jaguar cichlid" is more than twice as prevalent on the web as the Latin name. It's nearly a full order of magnitude more prevalent than the next most popular vernacular name, "jaguar guapote" - and if that's where we draw the line, then names like "managuense cichlid" and "guapote tigre" aren't even in the running. This is supported by Google Trends, which shows that on average, "jaguar cichlid" is searched for 47 times more than "parachromis managuensis" and "managuense cichlid" worldwide. We should name the article accordingly. Simple as. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NewLabour Party (New Zealand) → NewLabour Party – This was requested ~7 years ago and no consensus was reached. I think it's been enough time to request a new move. WP:SMALLDETAILS was practically created for this type of situation: The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g. MAVEN vs. Maven; Airplane! vs. Airplane; Sea-Monkeys vs. SeaMonkey; The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed at The World Is Yours. The lack of a space between 'New' and 'Labour' seems more than sufficient enough to distinguish this page from other similar titles. Loytra (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 17:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mind control (disambiguation) → Mind control – Mind control does not necessarily refer to brainwashing, which is specifically referring to a concept of semi-permanent mental manipulation. It can also fall under the banner of hypnosis, a temporary form of mind control, whether in reality or using fictional powers to do so and Manipulation (psychology), secretly messing with someone's mind. It can even include Brain–computer interface, controlling a computer with one's mind. Therefore, there is no clear primary topic for this term and it should not be a primary redirect. (As an addendum; the target page has history, so if the move goes through, it should probably be moved to something that still redirects to brainwashing) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity".[3] It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.

References

  1. ^ Metcalfe, Alex (2022). "Italy, Islam in premodern". In Fleet, Kate; Krämer, Gudrun; Matringe, Denis; Nawas, John; Rowson, Everett (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three. Brill. ISBN 9789004161658.
  2. ^ Rizzitano, U. (1978). "Kalbids". In van Donzel, E.; Lewis, B.; Pellat, Ch. & Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume IV: Iran–Kha. Leiden: E. J. Brill. p. 496. OCLC 758278456.
  3. ^ "What is gender-based violence? - Gender Matters". Council of Europe.
TRCRF22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Three Ages of Man and Death → The Ages and Death – The article seems to call it "the three ages of woman and death". The museum has The Ages of Woman and Death, in Spanish it is "Las Edades y la Muerte" (Ages and Death). Please note that there is a similarly named painting Die drei Lebensalter und der Tod (Hans Baldung) (Three ages and death).
    •  
      Las Edades y la Muerte (the ages (of man/woman) and death)

    Deadstar (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Discuss) – Toledo, Spain → Toledo – I think there's pretty clear evidence that the Spanish city is the primary topic when talking about the name "Toledo". Right now, the article for "Toledo, Spain" has 106 inter-language links and gets 993 daily average page views. In contrast, "Toledo, Ohio" has 82 inter-language links and gets 893 daily average page views. On Google Scholar, "Toledo" "Spain" gets 475,000 hits,[36] while "Toledo" "Ohio" gets 269,000.[37] So it seems clear that the usage of the term leans towards the Spanish city. In addition, the Spanish city of Toledo has much greater long-term significance, as a far older and historically significant city, and it is even listed as a UNESCO world heritage site. The last move discussion that proposed this took place in 2006, but to be honest, I found the arguments in opposition unconvincing. So I'm again proposing that this article be made the primary topic for "Toledo", and that the disambiguation page be moved to "Toledo (disambiguation)". Grnrchst (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – William Adams (pilot) → William Adams (samurai) – Detailed exposition in the thread just above, but his WP:COMMONNAME appears to mostly have the term "samurai" attached to it.

      He was not most notable as a pilot (meaning ship's navigator). He did a fair amount in his early years, and his common name in Japan was "'the pilot of Miura [Peninsula]"; but what he really is notable is, he was the first Englishman in Japan, and stayed there and became an important advisor to the shogun and introduced several modernizations.

      He was made a samurai -- maybe, or maybe not, but apparently that is how he known in the Anglosphere: books about him are like Samurai William and A True and Complete Account of the Life of William Adams - The English Samurai and Samurai William: The Englishman Who Opened Japan and William Adams, Samurai and Anjin - The Life and Times of Samurai William Adams, 1564-1620: A Japanese Perspective and Anjin (William Adams): The English Samurai and Servant of the Shogun: Being the True Story of William Adams, Pilot and Samurai, the First Englishman in Japan and The Blue-Eyed Samurai -- William Adams and Anjin: The Shogun and the English Samurai and probably more. But there is a book titled Adams the Pilot and Brittanica's article is "William Adams, English Navigator"

      It's been claimed by an editor(s) that he was not actually a samurai, but rather just a hatamoto which is an upper vassal to a samurai lord. Maybe that is so, or maybe it is debatable, and we don't want to tell the reader things that we are not quite sure are true. OTOH the article itself says "in 1605 Tokugawa further granted Adams the status of samurai." Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    June 3, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Typhoon Melor (2009) → Typhoon Melor and October 2009 North American storm complex – Long title, but I believe both events should be in the same article, as neither story can be told without the other. Melor is notable enough for its own article - it caused $1.5 billion in damage and struck Japan as a typhoon. That same storm fueled a powerful pineapple express that affected North America. So much of the met history is shared between the two events, not to mention, Melor's article discusses the North American impacts. Thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Small form factor (desktop and motherboard) → Small form factor – Unnecessary disambiguator. Small form factor redirects here. There had been an attempt to make a disambiguation page there, but that was a totally non-MOS:DAB-compliant page, and there is no meaningful ambiguity (permalink). The term "small form factor" can be colloquially used to refer to sizes of other types of hardware (for example, SD cards, but that is incorrect because their form factors are "full", "mini", and "micro", there is no "smallSD") but that is sporadic. The phrase appears in the name of a particular format: Small Form-factor Pluggable. Of course, there existing a page "Small Form-factor Pluggable" does not indicate that the page "Small form factor" needs to be disambiguated as the two titles are not co-ambiguous. —Alalch E. 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Headstone → tombstone – Dear God, no. (a) Not all gravestones are headstones. (b) This isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue. Tombstone is by far the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME for gravestones in every dialect of English (1, 2, 3). (c) Tombstone already (appropriately) links here, so this isn't any form of WP:NATURALDAB either. (If one were needed, which it ain't, funeral stela/stele would actually cover more ground and be more appropriate for cremated remains &c.) — LlywelynII 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Zürich → Zurich – Zurich appears to be the name most commonly used in English-language sources, including by the city itself[41], Zurich Airport[42], Swiss Railways[43], airline Swiss[44], and Zurich local transport newtork[45]. I agree that there are some English-language sources that spell it Zürich, but they are either those that consistently prefer localised spelling (Düsseldorf, Łódź, or Hồ Chí Minh City; BBC and Britannica often fall here), or those that follow Wikipedia. Yet, non-umlauted spelling, even if not universal, appears to be the English norm. — kashmīrī TALK 06:35, 3 June 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.
    • (Discuss) – Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge Cup → AVC Women's Challenge Cup – This move request requires a technical move, as the proposed new title already exists as a redirect page. The reason for the move is per WP:UCRN, as the article's cited sources refer to the event tournament either as the AVC Women's Challenge Cup or the AVC Challenge Cup for Women, never as the Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge Cup. And per WP:CONCISE, inserting the word "Volleyball" is unnecessary as it produces a redundancy. Bagoto (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Ddakji → Ttakji – "Ttakji" abides by Revised Romanization of Korean ("RR"). I dislike "ddakji" because it's not a valid spelling in neither of the two major romanization systems: RR and McCune–Reischauer ("MR"). I'd argue there is no WP:COMMONNAME. Neither spellings show up in Ngrams. "Ddakji" is ever slightly more popular in news articles than the more correct "ttakji" in some simple Google searches, but it's like 48 vs 9 articles from mostly low quality pop culture sources; hardly a consensus I'd argue. By contrast, the Encyclopedia of Korean Folk Culture [46], uses "ttakji", and so does Korea.net [47]. I'm admittedly a little bothered by the power that Wikipedia has on language, and that if we keep this "incorrect" spelling on Wikipedia it'll make it even more popular. Romanization of Korean is already beset with inconsistent spellings and I dislike the thought of making the problem worse. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Khanqah → Sufi lodge – Per WP:USEENGLISH and for a more inclusive title that reduces confusion. Recapping what was discussed in the thread above:
      Until now, this article has been the main overview article for Sufi religious institutions/venues. There are various terms used in Arabic/Persian/Turkish/etc for this type of institution, with the choice varying roughly by region. This is explained in the article already ("Etymology" section) and also conveniently in the equivalent entry of the Encyclopedia of Islam, Three ([48]):  ::

      Khānaqāh (or khānqāh) is a Persian word for the place where Muslim mystics gather. It was, and still is, used mainly in Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, western China, and the Indian subcontinent. Other terms were more common elsewhere, such as zāwiya in Arab lands, Africa, and Indonesia, and tekke in Turkey and the Balkans. All these terms are often interchangeable. Usually translated as “Ṣūfī lodge” (rather than “convent”) in English, the khānaqāh is a room or an establishment where Ṣūfīs assemble around a spiritual master to perform rituals (often by night or in darkness) and to share meals, to communicate with one another, and to follow spiritual teachings.

      While the term "khanqah" is one of the most common terms for this type of place, it is not used in all regions, and in some regions the different terms may also have slightly different meanings. This has led to confusion on more than one occasion over this article's scope, over which title editors should link in other articles, etc. Changing to an English term, which is more generic, would avoid this problem and make the title a little more neutral, in addition to being easier for unfamiliar English readers. As the source above indicates, "Sufi lodge" is the favored English term. An ngram of the most common English variants seems to confirm this. The various non-English terms should redirect here (as most already do) or, where appropriate, can be turned into subtopic articles for more specific types of Sufi institutions or for specific regions (e.g. like Zawiya (institution), Dargah). R Prazeres (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – I suggest that we rename this article to "Srebrenica genocide" now that the UN has issued its resolution on the matter today, designating July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica Please also check the discussion above. Njamu (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
    • (Discuss) – Tungipara Sheikh family → Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – The current name of the article is Tungipara Sheikh family which is WP:OR. The name is originated from original research and no historical book or news article call this family by Tungipara Sheikh Family. This family, unlike Suhrawardy family, wasn’t part of publication or scholarly research before the creation of Bangladesh and before Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and that's why people didn’t give any specific name for the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There are many books and research papers mention the family as "Family of Bangabandhu" or "Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman". Bangabandhu is his title so it is reasonable to name this article Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. There are sources to verify my claim. For example, see this article where it says "8 Bangabandhu family members, relatives to contest polls". The Daily Star states "Bangabandhu family to get more security, free utility, foreign treatment" (see here). Now some sources also call this family as Sheikh family. See this Bengali source where it says in title "শেখ পরিবার থেকে নেতৃত্বে যারা" (lit. 'Those led from the Sheikh family'), but if you read the content then you will get "...দশম জাতীয় সংসদে বঙ্গবন্ধু পরিবারের সাত সদস্য ছিলেন। একাদশ জাতীয় সংসদ নির্বাচনে অংশ নেওয়া বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমানের পরিবারের ৯ সদস্যই প্রতিনিধিত্ব করছেন.." (lit. '...There were seven members of the Bangabandhu family in the 10th National Parliament. 9 members of the family of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who participated in the 11th National Parliament election are represented...'). Now the question is if the nine members are really from the direct bloodline of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or not. * Sheikh Hasina : Daughter of Mujib * Sheikh Selim : Son of Mujib's sister * Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh : Son of Mujib's nephew * Sheikh Helal Uddin : Son of Mujib's brother * Noor-E-Alam Chowdhury Liton : Son of Hasina's cousins * Abul Hasanat Abdullah : Son of Mujib's brother-in-law * Sheikh Tonmoy son of Hasina's cousin * Sheikh Salahuddin Jewel : Son of Mujib's younger brother. * Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury : Son of Hasina's cousins. So it is not important if they are directly from Mujib's bloodline or not, the sources still call the family as Mujib's family and that family includes relatives and even distant relatives of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Naming this family as Sheikh family or Sheikh–Wazed family or Sheikh–Kazi family is original research, and we should name it as Family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman because we know the family because Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the nation, came from the family. And the most important fact is reliable sources call the family by the family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mehedi Abedin 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 14:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Mokai Tramway → Taupo Totara Timber Company Railway – The proposed title makes this article easier to find. Many readers will have heard of the "TTT", the tourist town of Taupo, or Lake Taupo. Few people will be familiar with the sawmilling village of Mokai, which today has only a few houses and a marae. The name also distinguishes the main Putaruru to Mokai line from the bush tramways radiating from Mokai. Many of these tramways were accessible only to selected TTT Railway rolling stock. In contrast, all TTT locomotives including the Mallet and the four-wheeled locos were able to run through to Mokai, where the company had its main mechanical workshop. The proposed new title also distinguishes the TTT Railway from the Kinleith Branch, which covered only part of the route and was built on formation that was largely new. (The original TTT formation north of Tokoroa is still visible in some places). I have a large collection of source material on the railway and the company and I hope to add more info and true primary citations as time permits. I will also propose that a separate page be set up covering the TTT company itself Kbwc56 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Protestant Church in Germany → Evangelical Church in Germany – Both terms (in English) are used by the EKD itself, but Evangelical is the more common, more accurate term. Etymologically, evangelical/evangelische refers to the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον), while Protestant refers to the Protestation at Speyer. It is not true that "Evangelical" is the former name (see EKD en homepage), and it is also untrue that the term "Evangelical" strictly or primarily refers to the Evangelical/Mainline divide among American denominations. The onus must be on those preferring "Protestant" to demonstrate such a shift in meaning, and I do not feel that prior discussion participants have succeeded. If we are worried that the reader would make this false association, it could easily be cleared up in the body of the article. Survey of use: Ngram, World Council of Churches, Britannica. The lead could read, for example: "the Evangelical Church in Germany, (also called the Protestant Church in Germany)" Dirkwillems (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Words of estimative probability → Verbal probability – Given that this has been here for a decade and a half now, I didn't want to move it unilaterally without giving people a chance to object beforehand, but verbal probability seems to be a much more concise way of defining the same topic, see for example a PLOS article.[1] I don't think "words of estimative probability" is used that much more often in literature, for all that Kent used it in their 1962 work, from what I can see, it's actually the other way around, even though we do have some that use it like van Tiel et al.[2] Of course, most literature does seem to tack on "word" or "phrase" or "expression" or something else like that, but they also seem to drop it easily enough when concision is desired, so I don't think it's necessary for our title here. I suppose probability phrase is another plausible alternate title if we want to stick to proper grammar, and it does seem to see some use in RS as well, but it seems overall less common, which is why I've opted for "verbal probability" instead. Should probably be a redirect though!

    References

    1. ^ Wintle, Bonnie C.; Fraser, Hannah; Wills, Ben C.; Nicholson, Ann E.; Fidler, Fiona (2019-04-17). "Verbal probabilities: Very likely to be somewhat more confusing than numbers". PLOS ONE. 14 (4): e0213522. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1413522W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213522. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 6469752. PMID 30995242.
    2. ^ van Tiel, Bob; Sauerland, Uli; Franke, Michael; Nicholson, Ann E.; Fidler, Fiona (2022). "Meaning and Use in the Expression of Estimative Probability". Open Mind. 6 (4): 250–263. doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00066. ISSN 2470-2986. PMC 9987346. PMID 36891036.
    Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Ayub Khan → Ayub Khan (disambiguation) – This article has been moved numerous times and it seems there's never been any discussion about it. The underlying issue appears to be that we have a set index article at the common name for this person. As this person is the primary topic, the solution is simple: move the set index article out of the way. Problem solved. I could have quite simply done a round-robin move but going through a formal move request, we can settle the issue once and for all. Schwede66 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Fallout (disambiguation) → Fallout – the Fallout redirect is to be deleted to make way for the move. – I am here after finding this disambiguation page on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Popular pages for April '24 with ~2.8 million views, which is a bit too much to ignore. Page history shows this was moved based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Fallout (which is an indication of editor behavior, not necessarily reader behavior, and WP:RF), and anonymous users tried to move it twice now (but a long time ago). https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Nuclear_fallout for April shows the by far the most popular outgoing clickstreams from there are to the hatnotes, outpacing the next identifiable clickstream by orders of magnitude. Honestly the main reason I'm even raising a discussion here instead of just moving this is that nobody seemed to complain since 2010. This seems to imply that either navigation was fine, or that the threshold for modifying it was too high. Page view statistics for the popular topics indicate the latest spike is because of the recent reader interest in the TV series. This latest thing also being based on the franchise in turn contributes to the notion that the long-term significance of the franchise isn't ignorable compared to that of nuclear fallout. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Genocide of Indigenous peoples → Genocide of indigenous peoples – "Indigenous" is only a proper name when adopted as conventional for a particular ethnic group, and when applied to the specific groups who have done so. As a general, global adjective it is not and cannot be a proper name (any more than the opposite, "colonial"), so should not be capitalized. See in particular the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS: WP does not capitalize that which is not capitalized consistently across nearly all independent reliable sources, and "indigenous peoples" is not so capitalized (indeed, it is overwhelmingly lowercase [49][50], except in highly retrictive contexts that refer to specific populations who have adopted the term self-referentially as a name in English). This same situation is true of all such terms such as "native" and "aboriginal". "Aboriginal" is capitalized in reference to autochthonous Australians, and "Native" is capitalized in "Native Americans" in reference to the autochthonous peoples of what is now the US and sometimes (in mostly US usage) all of the Americas. But "native" is not capitalized (by the preponderance of modern reliable sources) in reference to Australians, nor "aboriginal" in reference to Americans, and neither is capitalized in "the native (aboriginal) peoples and languages of Siberia and Central Asia before the Soviet Union", etc. PS: There may be other over-capitalized articles of this sort, but perhaps take them one at a time, since some might pertain more narrowly to groups that have taken on "Indigenous" as a self-referential name/label.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC); revised 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan massacre → Rafah tent camp attack – News sources have called it "attack", "massacre", "strike" and "airstrike". It is not yet clear which is the most WP:COMMONNAME. "Massacre" carries value judgement, and "airstrike" obscures the fact that many of the casualties weren't killed directly by the airstrike, but were burned alive in the resulting fire. "Strike" is very similar to "attack", but "attack" is consistent with other similar events like World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. I also think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan" and most sources seem to use "Rafah tent camp" or "Rafah displacement camp".VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

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


    See also

    The current Wikipedia time is:
    03:54, Monday, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    To update time purge the cache!
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1221908361"