Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

  • 3 Tammuz → Gimel Tammuz (currently a redirect back to 3 Tammuz) (move · discuss) – most acurate name YisroelB501 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Mach61 Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions, automobile articles are always at "Make Model" for consistency. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its better to have a "Tesla" name at the front just for disambiguation. Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 15:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intrisit Start an RM for these mass changes. There is not unanimous consensus for this format, and it does appear to contradict a relevant guideline, so this is not uncontroversial. C F A 💬 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

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

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

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 16 October 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 16 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 16 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 16 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 16 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 16 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 55 discussions have been relisted.

October 16, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Fishing Lakes → Calling Lakes – The widely used name for these lakes amongst local governments and organization is no longer Fishing Lakes. It has been replaced by Calling Lakes with Qu'Appelle, a french word that means "who calls", as the second most common name usage. The locale is predominantly English speakers with french being another official language in the country. It is less ambiguous to use the proper Calling Lakes name as search engine results for Fishing Lakes will bring content for lakes in general that are good to fish at regardless of location. Therefore fishing lakes is an ambiguous place name and should be demoted. 198.245.116.192 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 15, 2024

  • (Discuss) – English Revolution → Marxist views of the English Civil War – Clearly not what most people are looking for, the numerous rebellions, the Glorious Revolution, and the Civil War itself are all more likely desired IMO. The article is mostly about the term as used by Marxists. English Revolution should be made into a DAB. From a brief google search most articles found about the English Revolution use it to individually refer to either the ECW or the Glorious Revolution, with few referring to the Marxist term. Gazingo (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Swedish Brother's Feud → ? – The current title is perhaps a partial translation of Den andra brödrastriden (no source is given), but as far as I know, the conflict doesn't have an established name. Since Wikipedia's scope is global and it covers all time periods, this short title seems somewhat weird. Also, it should be Swedish brothers' feud, with plural brothers and without capitalization, since it is not really a proper name but a descriptive phrase. I suggest two alternatives, between which I am quite undecided: * Conflict between Birger Magnusson and his brothers, based on the title of Jerker Rosén's dissertation "Striden mellan Birger Magnusson och hans bröder : studier i nordisk politisk historia 1302-1319". * Inter-Nordic conflict of 1302–1319, based on Sverre Bagge's article Aims and means in the inter‐Nordic conflicts 1302–1319 (I don't think the plural is absolutely necessary, and using it might suggest that the article is a list). The latter title would make the focus of the article a bit wider. This would help avoid duplicating content, since the strife between Magnussons is already covered in their biographies. However, going into detail about the power-play between different kingdoms (See Bagge's article) might be a distraction in the biographies, but could be discussed here. Sundberg 2010 calls this Kampen mellan Birger och hans bröder 1304–1310. Sundberg's time limits are explained by his focus on armed conflict. However, I think Rosén's and Bagge's temporal limits make more sense, since the political conflict already starts when Birger becomes of age 1302, and ends in 1319 to his deposition. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Juan Fageda → Joan Fageda – His birth certificate may well say the Castilian name Juan and he would have been forced into that name for the first 40 years of his life, but personal preferences and modern sources strongly prefer the Catalan name Joan. Going by WP:OFFICIALNAME we would have William Clinton and Anthony Blair. Fageda's website is joanfageda.com and this letter on it is signed as Joan [9]. Third-party sources in Castilian are using Joan [10] even the conservative El Mundo [11] and the nationalist OKDiario [12] so this is not editorial Catalanism, something that the subject as a People's Party politician is exceedingly unlikely to support Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Quadrantal (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 14, 2024

October 13, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Vassar → Vassar (disambiguation) – When people are searching for "Vassar", they are most likely to be searching for Vassar College. Vassar College is by far the most visited page on the disambiguation page, with 28,573 visits last month. The rest aren't even close: the next closest is Phil Vassar with only 4,299 last month, then Vassar Clements at 1,574, then Matthew Vassar at 1,023, and so on. Results for "Vassar" on Google confirm that the college is the primary topic, with other topics appearing about as much as if you search "Harvard", which redirects to the university. BappleBusiness[talk] 18:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neopanax colensoi → Pseudopanax colensoi – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA - overwhelming usage within recent scientific papers, despite mixed use in taxonomic databases. Without a clear scientific basis for a preference of one name over the other, MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES: that there is a clear consensus among New Zealand scientific sources for a clade of plants endemic to New Zealand. *Neopanax and Pseudopanax together form a clade. Currently there are three morphological forms of the species within this clade - two are always described as Pseudopanax, while one (the more basal form) is sometimes described as Neopanax and sometimes Pseudopanax. page 52 of this thesis has a useful graph showing phylogenetic relationships within the group. Neopanax was synonymised with Pseudopanax in the 20th century, re-established as a genus in 2004, but the justification of this was disputed in 2009. The distinction appears to be one based on conventions rather than a clear scientific justification (i.e. less based on whether or not Neopanax is a distinct clade within Pseudopanax, and more based on whether it's justified to use a different name for this clade, or to continue to use the pre-2004 convention). This issue was previously discussed at WikiProject Plants. *Different taxonomical databases use different preferred names. Pseudopanax is overwhelmingly used by New Zealand databases. **Pseudopanax preferred: NZ Flora, Biota of New Zealand, IUCN, iNaturalist, NZOR and NZTCS **Neopanax preferred: CoL, EoL, GBIF, IRMNG, NCBI, OTOL, POWO *Recent scientific sources outside of taxonomic databases overwhelmingly prefer Pseudopanax. Looking at Post-2020 Google Scholar results for species within the Neopanax clade:

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12, 2024

  • (Discuss) – List of Ferris wheels → List of tallest Ferris wheels – There is no list of all buildings or office centers, all amusement parks, etc., just as the idea of ​​including all Ferris wheels in the world in one list is absurd. I believe the article should be renamed, as the number of Ferris wheels in the world is absolutely huge, likely measured in thousands, and including all of them in a list is simply impossible! And not necessary, as there is no encyclopedic significance in all Ferris wheels ranging from 10-20 meters in height, from every small town, amusement park, or even shopping center... Perhaps the original idea of ​​the article was the TOP of the tallest Ferris wheels in the world, but then the title simply does not correspond to the content and the article needs to be renamed. The only, in my opinion, controversial point is what should be the threshold for including a wheel in the list. My opinion - definitely not less than 80 meters (possibly more - 90 or even 100), otherwise there will be too many wheels and it will be difficult to maintain the relevance of the article. As an argument, I would like to refer to the sale of 88-meter-high wheels on alibaba, which means that wheels of this height can be mass-produced and installed all over the world for a relatively low price for such a giant. Another example - I tried to find a source to confirm the Phnom Penh Eye wheel from Cambodia (from this article), 88 meters high, and found only one very questionable source, and it was not even possible to determine if such a wheel exists or not... Therefore, there is a corresponding problem with wheels up to 80 meters in height, while there are no such problems with wheels ranging from 90-100 meters in height. Aqob (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Aqob (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Seon (Korean name) → Sun (Korean name) – Proposing moving to "Sun (Korean name)" per the wording in the article itself stating that "Sun" is the more common romanization of the surname: "In a study by the National Institute of the Korean Language based on 2007 application data for South Korean passports, it was found that 60.7% of people with this surname spelled it in Latin letters as Sun in their passports, while another 39.2% spelled it as Seon.[1]" For the syllable in a given name, Wikipedia has 10 name articles that romanize the syllable as "Sun" in their article titles, and 4 name articles that romanize it as "Seon".

References

  1. ^ 성씨 로마자 표기 방안: 마련을 위한 토론회 [Plan for romanisation of surnames: a preparatory discussion]. National Institute of the Korean Language. 25 June 2009. p. 61. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
RachelTensions (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Murder of Felicia Gayle → Execution of Marcellus Williams – I think it is clear, judging by the sources used in the article already, that the only notable component of Felicia Gayle's murder is that the accused, Marcellus Williams, was convicted and executed despite indications to his innocence. If there was no doubt to Williams' guilt, this article would not exist, making an article split inappropriate. Furthermore, I do not think titling it just "Marcellus Williams" makes sense either, as we are not writing about the man, but the process of conviction, the repeated execution stays, and the actual execution. Horep (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of governors of Ohio → Governor of Ohio – This article is not just a list of governors of Ohio. It documents Ohio governor qualifications, powers, and succession, as well as other infobox information such as term length, deputy, and salary. Because of the elaboration of this article on the broader topic and for consistency with other names of articles about state governors, I propose changing the name of this article. What are your thoughts? JordanJa🎮es92🐱9 00:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 11, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Same-sex marriage in Nepal → Recognition of same-sex unions in Nepal – "Marriage" with literally ZERO rights. Even Japanese partnership certificates are more useful than those temporary "marriage" certificates. Same-sex couples are misgendered and pressured into adopting gendered roles with little regard for their sexual orientation and gender identity. Plus, same-sex couples are entered into a "separate and temporary register" which sounds discriminatory and not very reassuring. In Thailand approximately 1500 same-sex couples are expected to marry on 22 January 2025. While in Nepal they are celebrating the seventh "same-sex marriage" in 15 months. Most of those couples are NOT even same-sex couples, they are transgender couples. Anyone who really believes this is "historic, groundbreaking, massive, powerful, amazing" is just ignorant and ridiculous. Cyanmax (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Johnny Blaze → Johnny Blaze (disambiguation) – The primary topic is Ghost Rider (Johnny Blaze), the most prominent Ghost Rider character. Two other meanings are listed on the disambiguation page. One is reflected in the target article as one entry in an indefinitely long list of at least 15 alternative names for a professional wrestler (supported by a dead link citation with an archive link that doesn't seem to be working either), and the other is reflected in the target article as an entry in a list of four alternative names for a rapper (with no source cited). I would just do this WP:BOLDly, as the case seems obvious, but it has been said that primary topic grabs should always be considered potentially controversial, and this would revert a move performed in 2006. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Directorate of Religious Affairs → Presidency of Religious Affairs – The current title seems its administrative division/unit. Suggested title it the current and original name of this organization[29]. Turkish Wikipedia also uses the suggested title here. The English Wikipedia also indicate Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı means Presidency of Religious Affairs. The official website also uses the suggested title. The original title was moved by a sock without discussion. Please see [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] The organisation history says, "By the Law 5634, published on 29.04.1950, “Diyanet İşleri Reisliği” (Directorate of Religious Affairs) was changed as “Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı” (Presidency of Religious Affairs)"[37] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Apartheid → Apartheid in South Africa – For the reason Nick Levine stated above and since the United Nations has accepted the apartheid as a term in and of itself and as general crime that can be committed anywhere outside SA, it just doesn't make any sense to keep the article subject bound to the historical event in SA. I mean, the Holocaust was the reason to make laws against genocides but it doesn't make sense to make the article Genocide bound to Holocaust and another one called Crime of genocide for all other genocides! ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Flash (DC Comics character) → The Flash – Per WP:NATURALDIS, naturally disambiguated titles (in this case, The Flash) are generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation (the current article title). While WP:THE usually discourages use of a "the" at the beginning of article titles, this RFC there has concluded that exceptions are allowed in the event that it would provide natural disambiguation, which is the case for this article. In any case, this title is probably the best option for this article. This character is almost exclusively referred to as "the Flash", never just "Flash". The main comic series is called The Flash, and there are two different major television series and a movie called The Flash, not just Flash. Plus, The Flash already redirects here so this article is already the primary topic for the term "The Flash". Ladtrack (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Michael Magee → Michael Magee (actor) – Not at all clear that the Canadian actor would be a permanent WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name, over and above other people in the disambiguation page. In fact, comparing him just to Michael Magee (writer) alone, the writer has the higher page views — only on September 21 did the writer dip below the actor in page views, and even then only by a whopping total of two, while the overall average over the past three weeks was 29 daily views for the writer to 13 daily views for the actor. (That's obviously not enough of a difference to render the writer into primary topic either, so the base title should be a disambiguation page, but it is enough to wreck any claim that the actor should be the primary topic.) And I even just caught a case where one of the writer's novels existed as a redirect to the actor instead of to the writer, which I've already corrected. The actor was largely only ever known in Canada, and even then was almost better known by the character pseudonym "Fred C. Dobbs" than by his own real name, so he's hardly a universal primary topic to the world. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) – Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[1] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – CBS Weekend → CBS WKND – This is the official branding for the block, this shouldn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines to use it on the title, using "CBS Weekend" for the title is disruptive to me in my opinion, and could cause confusion for other articles with similar titles in it, including CBS Weekend News, although some users in the previous move discussion said that "CBS Weekend" reads better to them, it's an unofficial branding and is disruptive to me to use it instead of "CBS WKND." 2603:6081:893D:13AC:7100:943E:5C15:68C0 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Uralic Phonetic Alphabet → Finno-Ugric Transcription – This is the traditional term. Salminen (2024) writes Finno-Ugric Transcription has occasionally been called the “Uralic Phonetic Alphabet”, which is a misnomer for every word in the term, as “Finno-Ugric” has been included in the name of the system from the very beginning, the system is decidedly linguistic rather than phonetic, and it by no means constitutes an alphabet. Note the use of the word "occasionally", which means we have both a reliable and recent source for the fact that "Uralic Phonetic Alphabet" is not the primary name. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [48] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ a b Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:
09:22, Wednesday, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1251237522"