Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Tykhe (disambiguation) → Tykhe (currently a redirect instead to Tyche) (move · discuss) – Alternative, rarely used spelling of the Greek goddess is not the primary topic; current redirect gets a daily average of zero page views and is not linked anywhere. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@ModernDaySlavery "Concision" is definitely the common name here. See ngrams for example. C F A 💬 13:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think this would be uncontroversial? Your ngrams show that uppercase is the common styling. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as you know, the threshold is far from a simple majority. You are also aware that ngrams over-report capitilisation such as expected use in headings, captions and titles in citations where title case is used. However Randy Kryn, if you insist on wasting everybody's time on what is reasonably a foregone conclusion, then we can have an RM. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was never eligible for RMT to begin with considering the plethora of RMs on the page. None have contested the capitalization but I definitely can see contesting overall. If you want to continue with the move, please use the discuss button above to start an RM. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:25, 12 September 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 13 September 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 13 September 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 00:22, 13 September 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 13 September 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 00:22, 13 September 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 13 September 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 00:22, 13 September 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 13 September 2024

– why Example (talk) 00:22, 13 September 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 13 September 2024

– why Example (talk) 00:22, 13 September 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. 63 discussions have been relisted.

September 13, 2024

September 12, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Moggy → Domestic cat (landrace) – Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. Cats are found worldwide. There is no place for a localized colloquialism to be a MAIN page reference on Wikipedia. I am located in the United States and never once have I ever heard the term “moggy” used to refer to a cat. The merging of Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat was an appropriate move as the only difference is the gene for hair growth. However, I don’t understand why a slang term page was revived from like, 2007 to merge the two pages together. Wikipedia Manual of Style in the Opportunities for Commonality section states that as an international English-speaking Wikipedia, using universally accepted terms is much more appropriate. For example, “to mog” or “mogging” in Gen Alpha terms - see mog. Nobody outside of Britian or Australia even knows what a moggy is. To make things messier, there were previous merges and fights about “moggy” vs. “moggie.” Y’all do not need a page for your local colloquialism. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality bullet points 1-4. My new write-up for the beginning of the new article also explains this landrace breed, using hyphenation glossing as is suggested by the Manual of Style: A Domestic shorthair or Domestic longhair cat, sometimes regionally referred to as a moggy, is a landrace breed of cat reproducing without human intervention for type. The vast majority of cats worldwide lack any pedigree ancestry. The landrace can include cats living with humans or in feral colonies. Gene flow moves between the two populations as feral cats are tamed, housecats are released, and free-roaming unneutered cats breed freely. Simmy27star (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor – Per WP:NDESC and WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources predominantly describe this topic as a "claim", "rumor", or "conspiracy theory" rather than a hoax, and describe it as baseless or unsubstantiated rather than false. (As I write this, the only major WP:RSPSS I've found describing it as a "hoax" is New York.) Although the definitions of "hoax" and "rumor" overlap to some degree, the word "hoax" insinuates a deliberate and malicious trick, and the supposed event has not been and potentially may never be definitively proven as such. Per my older edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth", which I think summarizes the topic better than "claim" or "conspiracy theory". Carguychris (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Whitewashing (censorship) → Whitewashing (propaganda) – It's not a censorship practice, which is a direct suppression of material, usually by force or threat of force by some entity with power such as a government. It's a propaganda or public relations practice, and that is what the article talks about. Whitewashing is pretty closely related to spin (propaganda) really. "Whitewashing (coverup)" would be reasonable too maybe, and sugarcoat, launder, excuse, and other terms could be in play too; there's no one perfect term, but it says here that "Whitewashing (propaganda)" is the best term. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gyat → Gyatt – "Gyatt" is potentially the more common spelling, at least in my experience online (The provided sources seem split). The disambiguation page currently present at "Gyatt" contains an alternate spelling for guyot that is unsourced and mentioned nowhere on the target article. "Gyat" could merge to "Gyatt", guyot should be removed, and the USS Gyatt linking should be a note at the top. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2024

  • (Discuss) – One-wall handball → Wallball – Wallball is the name now used by most of the major organisations involved in governing the sport in countries across the globe, such as GAA Handball, UK Wallball, the United States Handball Association etc - they have moved away from referring to the game as 'one-wall handball', instead using the name 'Wallball' for the sport. N.B. the United States Handball Association (USHA) uses both names albeit they are used for two different codes of American handball - they use the name 'One-wall handball' to describe the code played with the smaller, harder rubber ball normally used in the four-wall code of American handball and the name 'Wallball' to refer to the game played with the bigger, softer rubber ball, very similar to a racquetball, that this article talks about. The name 'Wallball' was also introduced by the organisations above, to differentiate itself from the game of handball currently played in the Olympics, that is similar to the sport of soccer, but played with one's hands. Indeed a few weeks ago, the World Wallball Championships took place in Limerick, Ireland, with 13 countries taking part, as can be seen in the name of the event itself, being 'World Wallball Championships' rather than 'World One-wall Handball Championships', as it used to be called. Rhubarb500 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 05:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Transnistria → Pridnestrovie – In connection with the new laws adopted in the Republic of Pridnestrovie regarding the names of this state, the need to rename this article has become obvious. Let me remind you that the Parliament of Pridnestrovie amendments adopted to the laws, according to which the use of the term "Transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie entails arrest for up to 15 days with possible reclassification under a criminal article. The reason is that the word "Transnistria" is extremely offensive to the people of Pridnestrovie and has repeatedly become a cause of conflicts. In general terms, this is interpreted as a wish for genocide to Pridnestrovians. The current title of the article is absolutely incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME in this case cannot justify it, since the overwhelming majority of cases of using the term Transnistria in English-language texts refers either to the administrative division of Moldova (the autonomous entity Stinga Nistrului), or to the so-called territory of the left bank of the Dniester not controlled by Chisinau ("breakaway region of Moldova"), but not to the Pridnestrovian Republic, which is described in this article. Such naming is, apparently, an invention exclusively of Wikipedia. There is not a single Wikipedia article about a geographical or political entity whose name directly offends its population or would be prohibited by law in this country, except for this one. It would be absurd to leave an article with such a name. I would also like to remind you that the article about the former Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was renamed Republic of Artsakh following a referendum in that republic, although the old name was unconditionally dominant in all non-Armenian texts and was not offensive at all. This did not meet with any objections in Wikipedia community. Of course, this cannot be a precedent, and we must be guided by the rules, however, in the case of the term "Transnistria", apparently, there is a circle of interested parties defending this absurd vicious practice in their own political interests (WP:POV). This also needs to be paid attention to. The following suggestions: # Rename the article Transnistria to Pridnestrovie. # On the Transnistria page, put a template about a polysemantic term and list the articles it may refer to: Stinga Nistrului, Transnistria Governorate, Pridnestrovie, etc. Why "Pridnestrovie" and not "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic"? According to WP:OFFICIALNAMES and for the same reasons that articles are called "Moldova" and not "Republic of Moldova", "Russia" and not "Russian Federation", etc. Links: *The presidential initiative on the inadmissibility of using the term "transnistria" in relation to Pridnestrovie was adopted unanimously *Transnistria must be vanished  :2A03:F680:FE04:45D2:2C72:43DD:63F1:682C (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Camsá people → Kamëntšá people – Hello, I'm requesting that these two pages swap the word Camsá in the title with Kamëntšá, as it is my understanding that Kamëntšá is the more commonly used endonym. If nothing else, I would like to see the naming dispute resolved through a full discussion, regardless of the outcome. In 2022, the page about the people was named Kamëntšá people, while the page about the language was named Camsá language. I renamed the language page to Kamëntšá language for consistency, but it was later moved back to Camsá, and then the page about the people was also renamed to Camsá, suggesting that there is still a disagreement here that needs to be ironed out. Full disclosure: this topic is well outside my own area of expertise, and I am seeking a resolution to this naming dispute on behalf of my friend, a published anthropologist and researcher who writes extensively about the Kamëntšá people (sources on the subject written by him include [4] and [5]). He found it disappointing that Wikipedia does not use what he believes to be the more appropriate name, but he is less familiar with some of the ins and outs of Wikipedia procedures so I am posting this for him. His rationale for using Kamëntšá is as follows:

    The Kamëntšá have historically been known by a range of other names. Complicating matters is that the Kamëntšá language does not have a standardized orthography, giving way to alternate spellings such as Kamsá, Camsá, Kamentza, Kamëntšá, Camëntsá, etc., all of which are found in the literature. I employ “Kamëntšá” because it is the spelling preferred in several recent publications from the community itself. To my mind, it also best captures the pronunciation of the word itself, which can be rendered phonetically in IPA as: /kamənʃa/ (Adrián Múnera, personal communication, March 12, 2023).

    For what it's worth, this isn't just the preference of one researcher who I happen to know. Google Scholar results do seem to demonstrate that Kamëntšá is used quite often in more recent literature compared to Camsá, so there is a strong argument that Kamëntšá is the WP:COMMONNAME in sources published in the 2020s and 2010s.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Macedonia (ancient kingdom) → Kingdom of Macedonia – Per WP:NCDAB, there's every reason for this page to be at the naturally disambiguated title of "Kingdom of Macedonia" – a title for which this page is the unambiguous primary topic (it redirects here) – and very little reason for it to have a parenthetically disambiguated title given that the naturally disamiguated title exists. There was a previous RM on this, but it appears to have overlooked both the preference towards natural disamiguatiom at WP:NCDAB and modern usage patterns, with the Wikinav chart of the undisambiguated base term showing the vast gulf between traffic to North Macedonia versus any other "Macedonia". It is the same in page views. The proposed term is also abundant in scholarship. Given all of this context, and the reality that the current title is in any case tantamount to "Macedonia (kingdom of)", we may as well just flip the title and remove the brackets. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wi-Fi 6 → IEEE 802.11ax – So this article was moved to the Wi-Fi 6 title in 2021, citing WP:COMMONNAME. However, all the other Wi-Fi articles (Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, Wi-Fi 5) use the IEEE technical name, rather than the "Wi-Fi x" marketing name. Thus I suggest moving this article to IEEE 802.11ax (without the "-2021" at the end, as it's not needed - WP:CONCISE; also the later articles don't have "-year" in the title either) to be WP:CONSISTENT with all these other Wi-Fi articles that are titled under the IEEE name. I'd say No one but advanced experts in this field would be searching for this article by its IEEE number, nor know what this article is about from its IEEE number. (from the previous RM) is not much of an issue anymore, as these Wi-Fi articles all now have a neat navigational template at the top clearly showing the "Wi-Fi x" marketing designations of each IEEE WLAN standard. Also, that's what redirects are for. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Theros Block (Magic: The Gathering) → Theros Block – There is no other "Theros Block" article or topic for which the disambiguation (Magic: The Gathering) is needed as an appendage to the article name. Also, "Theros Block (Magic: The Gathering)" with the parenthetical is not the official name for the content if that is what we wanted to represent, nor is the parenthetical the way that the content is most commonly described when reliable sources or even street usage is discussing the subject. 67.220.13.43 (talk) 13:41, 8 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – John Howard Pyle → J. Howard Pyle – The criteria for an article name are recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency. J. Howard Pyle—currently a redirect to John Howard Pyle—is, based on high-quality reliable secondary sources, the common name of the topic, who was rarely called "John Pyle" and much more frequently called either "J. Howard Pyle" or "Howard Pyle". See the following (bolding added): * Politics in America: 1945–1964 (Congressional Quarterly, 1965): Governors of the States Since 1944 [...] J. Howard Pyle (R) (110) * "J. Howard Pyle Dead; Ex-Arizona Governor", The New York Times, December 1, 1987: J. Howard Pyle, Governor of Arizona from 1951 to 1955 and an aide to President Eisenhower, died here Sunday * Donald W. Carson and James W. Johnso, Mo: The Life & Times of Morris K. Udall (University of Arizona Press, 2001), The GOP began to break through in 1950 with the surprise election of J. Howard Pyle as governor (58) * Andrew Murr, "Look Past Polygamy", Newsweek, May 12, 2008: The governor, J. Howard Pyle * Thomas G. Smith, "Worshipping at the Grand Canyon: The Shrine of the Ages Chapel Controversy", Journal of Arizona History (Autumn 2012): 221–252: J. Howard Pyle, a statewide radio celebrity who had been elected governor in 1950 (224) * Elizabeth Tandy Shermer, Sunbelt Capitalism: Phoenix and the Transformation of American Politics (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013): Goldwater told friend, reporter, and future governor Howard Pyle (161) * Donald T. Critchlow, Republican Character: From Nixon to Reagan (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018): They asked J. Howard Pyle, a local radio celebrity, to provide the keynote speech [...] he was approached afterward to run for governor (89) J. Howard Pyle as the article title is more recognizable (it's what a reader aware of who J. Howard Pyle is would expect), it's natural (it's his usual, normal name), it's precise (there is no other J. Howard Pyle article on Wikipedia), it's concise (it's shorter than John Howard Pyle), and it's consistent (as WP:UCRN explains, full names that aren't the common name generally aren't used for biographies: J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling), making this article name more consistent with our conventions for naming biographies). This move will also help editors research the topic for improving the article; I was stymied when I was looking for "John Pyle" and "John Howard Pyle" but was able to find quality secondary sources about the topic by looking up "Howard Pyle" and "J. Howard Pyle".
    The artist born in 1953 is the primary topic for the link Howard Pyle, so this article should not be moved to that target. But it can rightly be moved to J. Howard Pyle, which is the common name of this article's topic and naturally disambiguates him from the artist Pyle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 7, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Herbs de Majorca → Hierbas de Mallorca – The current name, Herbs de Majorca, is not used in the sources. I did a google search for the following names in quotations: *"hierbas de mallorca" - about 39,600 results *"herbes de mallorca" - about 20,700 results *"herbs de majorca" - about 4,550 results *"herbs de mallorca" - about 2,900 results *"hierbas mallorquinas" - 594 results *"herbes de majorca" - 4 results *"hierbas de majorca" - 3 results This is not conclusive evidence, but to me, it suggests that either "hierbas de mallorca" or "herbes de mallorca" would be better (in WP:CRITERIA terms, more recongizable/natural). We already have an article on Hierbas, and the article on Mallorca is spelled with the double "ll", which is why I suggest changing the name of this article to "Hierbas de Mallorca". "Herbes de Mallorca" also seems viable since that is the name in Catalan. PrinceTortoise (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Podujevo → Podujevë – I propose changing the article's title to "Podujevë", as it is the official name endorsed by the government, widely used by the people of Kosovo (of which the majority happen to be Albanian) and the name most commonly referenced. According to WP:WIAN, we should identify the watershed moments in this location's history, and for Kosovo which this city is part of, the most recent watershed moment was the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo (whether its recognized or not). Referring to this guideline, then we should limit sources to those published after the Kosovo's independence (2008). In this case, Google Scholar and other criteria seem to favor the Albanian version of the name which is Podujevë or the definite form in Albanian of this name (Podujeva) more than the current name of the article (Podujevo). Also WP:MPN suggests that "For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. " Given that the 2011 census reports that 98.9% of the population in this municipality is Albanian, the local name is, logically, the Albanian version of Podujevë (Podujeva). The Google Scholar results show: * Podujevo [20] - 654 results * Podujevë [21] + Podujeva [22] - 388 + 427 = 815 results The analysis of the results show that the Albanian versions of the name are used around 20% (19.75%) more frequently. Therefore, I kindly ask for your support in approving this name change based on the facts I provided above. Typical Albanian (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eric XI of Sweden → Erik Eriksson (king) – The WP:COMMONNAME for this king is "Erik Eriksson". * Ngram shows that Erik Eriksson has been more common in the literature since 1910 or so. However, "Erik Eriksson" is also a common name for other people, so the full curve for "Erik Eriksson" cannot be attributed to the king. The decline in the use of "Eric XI" is more clear. * Reliable sources usually use the name Erik Eriksson. See e.g. GBooks search for Erik+1222+1250. Typical example is the Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Britannica does not have a dedicated page for him, but the "Learn more page" is titled Erik Eriksson. *There are a lot of other Erik Erikssons (dab page), and the king is not the primary topic. For disambiguation, I suggest the parenthetical disambiguation, which would be a concise choice. I don't believe our hands are tied very strongly by WP:NCROY here since its applicability to medieval Sweden is somewhat dubious. These patronymic names are not of the "common stock", and Sweden was not a hereditary monarchy at the time. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Okinawa (disambiguation) → Okinawa – Okinawa → Okinawa (disambiguation) Sources immensely vary on what Okinawa refers to without qualification, with the island, the islands, and the prefecture all commonly being referenced by that name; I cannot find a clear primary topic at all here. Despite this, Okinawa is currently just a redirect to the prefecture, with the dab hatnoted. Dictionary definitions are unhelpful, variously describing it as "an island" or "islands", which itself is ambiguous between the island chain and the prefecture. "Okinawa Island" and "Okinawa Prefecture" return similar amounts (18,000 and 19,000) of results on Google Scholar, but "on Okinawa" is much less used than "in Okinawa". Page view analysis shows that Okinawa Prefecture is less viewed than Okinawa Island, but not enough that the island would be a primary topic. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 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) – Pakistan National Congress → Bangladesh National Congress – There is no proof that Pakistan National Congress existed in Pakistan after Bangladesh Liberation War. The sources in the article clearly indicated that Pakistan National Congress became Bangladesh National Congress in 1971. It also participated in the 1973 Bangladeshi general election. On the other hand, Pakistan National Congress didn’t join 1977 Pakistani general election. In that sense, Bangladesh National Congress is the only successor of the Pakistan National Congress. Also, there is no proof we find that will lead us to believe that many politicians from West Pakistan were in this party, the names of the PNC politicians from the sources we find are mostly from East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh. It should be renamed to Bangladesh National Congress. However, if anyone can show us proofs stating many West Pakistani politicians were in that party then I would propose to rename it as "National Congress (1947–1975)". Mehedi Abedin 14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Altaic languages → Altaic hypothesis – Per above This article has been a constant struggle to get the academic consensus to be the focus of the article, particularly in light of many people simply not realizing the Altaic hypothesis isn't actually widely accepted as fact. "Altaic hypothesis" is heavily used in the literature (i.e. here) and allows us to differentiate the sprachbund and language family arguments more clearly in the body of the article. It also means someone looking up the topic on Wikipedia who isn't familiar with it isn't going to be met with the same heading we use for language families followed up immediately by a statement that it isn't likely a genetic language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – H2X → AN/APS-15 – The article's lede immediately identifies that the only system discussed is the AN/APS-15. It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be like either "AN/APS-15" or including the system name and type like "AN/APS-15 H2X radar". For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This move would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either AN/APS-15 or AN/APS-15 H2X radar. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 08:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning.
    Clickstreams from the last three months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream: :clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 28  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 52 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 32  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 56 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 17  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 16  :* Sloboda Boyar link 13  :* total: 46 to 3 identified destinations Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – Sophia Howe → Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe –

    DrKay and I have found ourselves in disagreement over the title of this article. At creation, this article was named like it currently is: Sophia Howe. Since she was a peeress suo jure (having inherited the barony from her father), I moved the article to Sophia Howe, 2nd Baroness Howe, which is generally the format for articles on peers – unless they disclaim the title, or don't use it (like for instance author Nicholas Mosley). DrKay moved it back to Sophia Howe with the comment Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator: mismatch of her maiden name and a title she inherited after her marriage. I can buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, but I find it peculiar that DrKay nevertheless kept it, while removing the title, which was correct. It seems to me that it flies in the face of his own edit summary. As I said, I totally buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, so I then moved the article to Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe; Waller being her surname when she inherited the title. DrKay has now moved the article back to Sophia Howe again, with the edit summary bizarre use of unknown surname! What's bizarre?, I ask. DrKay complains the Howe wasn't her surname when she inherited the title, I move it to the surname that she had when she inherited the title, and DrKay moves it back again (never mind referring to WP:RMUM after they have done it themselves ... ). I don't know if anyone is move-warring here, but if so, it certainly isn't me. I have acted in good faith. So, what should the article title be? # Sophia Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this lastname is her maiden name. # Sophia Curzon (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 1st husband. # Sophia Curzon-Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), #1 and #2 combined, which is what her son, who inherited the barony from her, chose. # Sophia Waller (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 2nd husband. Vote 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, etc, with a=with "2nd Baroness Howe", and b=without the title. My vote is 4a.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sid Eudy → Sycho Sid – Reposting on behalf of User:Rusted AutoParts, with the following rationale: "at no point was Sid ever known by his real name, so I find his being located at Eudy being confusing. I see there's prior rationale being debate over whether Sycho or Vicious was the common name. That'll probably be needed to be sorted through this discussion, but the point remains that to me, Eudy was not the common name, and is inappropriate the keep the page hosted at that location." 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) – The last time I requested this, I got the disambiguator tag wrong ('company' rather than 'train operating company'). Since its been a few months, and I am moving this to a different name this time, it should be acceptable (as in, not disruptive) to revisit it again. But anyway, similar to my previous rationale, the Midland Mainline TOC is long gone, and almost everyone searching for this is looking for the mainline, so I propose moving Midland Mainline to Midland Mainline (train operating company) then redirecting Midland Mainline to Midland Main Line. Even Google comes up with Midland Mainline first. I do get WP:SMALLDETAILS but I don't think it applies here since the primary topic is probably the mainline over the TOC. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 9 August 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.
  1. ^ a b c Schorr, Martin; Paulson, Dennis; Deliry, Cyrille. "World Odonata List". Puget Sound Museum of Natural History. University of Puget Sound. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
  2. ^ a b c "Species Austroepigomphus (Austroepigomphus) praeruptus (Selys, 1857)". Australian Faunal Directory. Australian Biological Resources Study. 2022. Retrieved 25 August 2024. Cite error: The named reference "AFD" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
00:22, Friday, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1243705348"