This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.
Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. 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. In such cases, 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 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 typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. 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, or 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.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
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:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
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.
I work in this field and must conclude that both "distance" and "online" are used regularly. We may be in the midst of a transition from a past term to a future term, but I don't think that future is nailed down yet. My assessment of this request is if it ain't broke don't fix it. Or at least try to get a discussion going at the article's Talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion at Talk:Khodaafarin Bridges#Common name in February 2023 which led to the current name. Although that wasn't a formal RM, it had a small consensus amongst two participants and was almost two years ago, so I'd probably label this one as potentially controversial. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't ping IPs, but if whoever made this request is checking this page, you will need to use the "discuss" button in your request to continue with the move. Pages that had a title previously discussed aren't moved at RMTR in most cases because it's not clearly uncontroversial. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly seeing evidence that that is the official name, still less the common name. It actually seems like simply Asian Team Championships is the name generally used, without mentioning squash in the title at all, so I'd probably favour a move to that since it's not ambiguous with anything else of that name. — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFICIALNAMES is not a valid reason to move this article. Please could we have some actual evidence? I'm a little confused what "Syria(n) TV" actually is, anyway. The article says it's a channel, but it seems like it might be more of a network. Also conscious that "Syrian TV" could be a wider term referencing TV in the country generally. — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your requested move has been contested; if you wish to proceed please use the "discuss" button in your original request to continue with a full requested move discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen; your technical request has been contested and as such, you will need to use the "discuss" button in your request to open a full RM if you wish to proceed. I suggest reading WP:AT over and expanding your rationale more and how it might better fit policy/guidelines if you do wish to proceed. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSMST1543 Your move was reverted so this is not uncontroversial. You can open a discussion by clicking the "discuss" link next to your request. CFA02:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 21 December 2024" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
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.
}}
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.
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Habtamu Ayalew Teshome → Habtamu Ayalew – In the Ethiopian naming system, Habtamu is a subject name, Ayalew is a surname and Teshome is a grandfather's name. So the grandfather name is no longer identified with the subject of the article as soon as there is another identical article in Wikipedia named "Habtamu Ayalew". A previous move to Habtamu Ayalew has been reverted due to potential page vandalism and I resorted requesting move here. AsteriodX (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lingayatism → Lingayat Sect – There were prior attempts to move the page, but not with proper citations and references and hence were rejected. I propose the name change of Page to "Lingayat Sect" from "Lingayatism" once again. Lingayat is a sect not a religion. Every source mentions it as a sect and a community. [1][2][3][4] Thank You!
(Discuss) – Texture (chemistry) → Crystallographic texture – The actual name does not make any sense as what is reported in the page is "Crystallographic texture". It is not a chemical property as who requested the previous move argued. Clearly who did it does not know at all the field and his comments should be disregarded completely. There was another comment complaining with it but it was disregarded even if it was correct. I work in this field, I wrote plenty of articles, chapters on the subject and did contribute to the page years ago and I know or did collaborate with most of the authors in the references. The title before the chemistry addition was also not proper because erroneously someone did change the original "crystallographic texture" into crystalline texture (not exactly the same meaning), but it was way better than Texture (chemistry). Chemistry and physical chemistry have nothing to do with crystallographic texture. The comment on amorphous materials is wrong and does not make any sense. We study the texture of crystalline materials, hence not amorphous. It is called then crystallographic texture to distinguish it from other texture types. The fact that some materials are amorphous and thus they don't have a crystallographic texture (this can be debated, we simply cannot measure it if present) cannot take us to the conclusion that texture is not a material science subject (I am a materials scientist BTW). The title change did get unnoticed by the experts in the field up to now. A change to revert it to the original one, Crystallographic texture, or Texture (crystallographic), must be made. 2001:B07:5D38:CC8F:DC5E:ACE:B8F2:3A96 (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bærum mosque shooting → 2019 Bærum murder and mosque shooting – Pursuant to the discussion above, which no one responded to: I have been wanting to improve this article for two years, since it is entirely stuck in the breaking news aftermath of when it happened instead of the later coverage, but I am frustrated by its scope, which makes it difficult to reflect what non-breaking news sources cover about this case. While all of the breaking coverage focuses on the mosque shooting, later coverage tends to focus both on Ihle-Hansen's murder (see the books, the docuseries, later news coverage) with about equal weight to the mosque attack. This is a problem because there was a separate motive for the killing of his sister, the background for what lead up to this event heavily involves her, and the more severe sentence Manshaus received was for murdering Ihle-Hansen, not for the failed mosque shooting. This is very close to what the Norwegian wikipedia titles its article on this case. I would title it closer to what the books and documentaries do, but they are usually titled after Manshaus's name. I am open to other suggestions as I know this isn't perfect but I do feel that any title for this article needs to not strictly focus it on the mosque event. The year is optional, but according to WP:NCE if an event is not broadly known it should include the year. This event is not widely known outside of Norway, but if people feel otherwise it could be titled Bærum murder and mosque shooting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Leptospermum scoparium → Mānuka – Per WP:NCFLORA, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNISABILITY. WP:NCFLORA states that we should follow usage in reliable sources, and that exceptions to the use of scientific names can be made when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural role or use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany. Mānuka has a massive cultural significance in New Zealand (particularly for Māori) and is known for its honey worldwide. Reliable sources overwhelmingly favour the name Mānuka over the scientific name, with there being three times as many academic results for a search of Mānuka (with or without the macron) compared to the scientific name. Ngrams also show overwhelming preference for Manuka over the scientific name. The use of the macron is proposed for consistency with other conventions for NZ-based articles, where macrons are used when the common name is of Māori origin and correct orthography calls for them. Turnagra (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Hannaford Brothers Company → ? – Move to either "Hannaford" or "Hannaford (supermarket)". The store seems to operate under the WP:COMMONNAME of "Hannaford", with the "Brothers Company" part not seeing wide use. It also seems to be by far the most common item of the name "Hannaford", so there is an argument that it should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (indeed, it's the only thing on the Hannaford dab page that has the exact name "Hannaford"; all the others are WP:PTM). At the least, the "Brothers Company" part needs to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)09:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Discovery Channel (Canadian TV channel) → Discovery Channel (1994 Canadian TV channel) – On 1 January 2025, this will no longer be the Canadian Discovery Channel, instead, a new different channel will be stood up and become the Canadian Discovery, since the license for "Discovery" group was transferred to a different licensee, and BellGlobeMedia will lose the right to the name (hence it being replaced by USA Network Canada, with a different programming of content, Discovery shows moving to the new Discovery.) This current particular network was stood up on 31 December 1994. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ~🌀Ampil「💬 / 📝」08:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – LANCO (band) → LANCO – Per the precedent of SHeDAISY, k.d. lang, CCH Pounder, JCPenney, and other articles, non-standard case may be used if there is overwhelming majority to do so. Reputable sources such as AllMusic, People, and Billboard render the name in all-caps, and I found few to no sources referring to the band as just "Lanco". Of the inbound links, page hits, and non-wikipedia search results, there is almost no traffic for LANCO regarding its use in reference to a defunct airline. By comparison, the band's article has a much larger inbound link and view count. In short, it seems as if anyone looking for LANCO in all-caps is without question looking for a currently active band, not a short lived defunct airline. And the all-caps spelling seems to be overwhelmingly preferred. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Trialeti–Vanadzor culture → Trialeti culture – The page was created under the name "Trialeti culture" back in 2007 and was moved under its current name without a discussion [9] and under the pretext that that is how this culture is referred to "in academic and archaeological sources" and that other archeological cultures of the Caucasus (Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture, etc.) are equally referred to via double names. The move was undone [10] but reinstated with more or less the same argumentation [11]. Meanwhile, a simple search on Google Scholar reveals 277 results for "Trialeti culture" and 32 results for "Trialeti-Vanadzor culture". The argument about the prevalence of double names elsewhere falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Parishan (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC). — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 3200 metres → 3200 meters – Want to change article title to American English, but the American English version currently is a redirect back to British English version. The reasoning behind this is that the 3200 meter run is primarily contested at American high school meets and thus should reflect American English in my opinion (1600 meters does this as well). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Intersex and LGBT → Intersex and LGBTQ – Following moves of WP:CONSUB. However, I noticed this case is a bit more specific, because it also deals with LGBTI. So if we move to LGBTQ, LGBTQI or LGBTIQ should also be notable, and they technically are. LGBTQI+, for example, is used by United Nations. LGBTQIA+ is also used worldwide, so I wouldn't oppose a different move in the acronym. It should also be noted it's using Intersex and LGBT as nouns, so alternative suggestions are appreciated. Noun terms such as community, identity, acronym, or topics are possible examples. LIrala (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Second Severn Crossing → Prince of Wales Bridge – I am pretty convinced, in the 6 years since the last time it was open to discussion, the use of Second Severn Crossing has fallen significantly in favour of the Prince of Wales bridge, considering both its official name and WP:COMMONNAME. Aware this is a controversial issue for some, for most independent sources and local/neighbouring reporting, the use of Second Severn Crossing has become rare compared to the Prince of Wales bridge, to refer to it specifically, while "Severn Crossings" often used to refer to them both together. A similarly named bridge in Canada has now been renamed. I struggled to find examples of "Second Severn Crossing" being used as its common name, even when a handful of times in recent times, given as its former name. *Bristol Live - "Miles of congestion formed over the Prince of Wales bridge" *BBC News - "M4 Prince of Wales bridge is also currently closed" *Wales Online[13] - "The Prince of Wales Bridge is three miles long...", "Series of closures on M4 Prince of Wales bridge.." *South Wales Argus - "newer M4 Prince of Wales Bridge remains open." *Traffic Wales - "M4 Prince of Wales bridge resurfacing" *The Sun - "The M4 Prince of Wales Bridge has barriers..." *Express - "Major police incident shuts Prince of Wales bridge" *Stroud Times - "advised the westbound M4 Prince of Wales Bridge" *Penarth Times - "M4 network congested after Prince of Wales Bridge crash" *Barry and District News - M4 Prince of Wales Bridge closed tonight with diversion *Visit Monmouthshire - and the Prince of Wales Bridge without paying a penny. *Welsh Gov - and Prince of Wales Bridge are now in operation. *Gloucestershire Live[ - Warning as M4 Prince of Wales Bridge to face several closures *Malvern Gazette - M48 and Prince of Wales bridge could close.. *Somerset Live - Amazing photos show above, below and inside Prince of Wales Bridge on M4 *North Wales Chronicle - traffic being diverted via the M4 Prince of Wales Bridge. *The Telegraph - traffic diverted via the M4 Prince of Wales Bridge. *New Civil Engineer - National Highways’ wind tunnel tests for Prince of Wales Bridge barrier replacement AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bindi (decoration) → Bindi – This is the primary topic. Below I've explained why articles and others listed on the current page 'Bindi' are not the primary topics. Note that Bindi (decoration) has had about 30,000 views in past 30 days: # Bindii (disambiguation): Redirects to Bindii, a completely unrelated article about plant species cluster, with different spelling and 697 views in last 30 days. # Bindiya: A disambiguation page with completely different spelling and 31 views. # Bhindi: term for okra in Indic languages, and a person who knows an Indic language will mostly never confuse a Bindi with a Bhindi, got 99 hits in last 30 days. # Bindy: A disambiguation page with different spelling and 83 views, with the articles in it getting 14, and 56 views. The article with most views is Bindy Johal with 7,275 views, again a different spelling, and unrelated. # Bindi (name): Disambiguation page with 99 views, and all the pages in it but two have a combined page view count of less than 800, #*Groovy Girls (around 1000 views) doll line: Has just 2 mentions of Bindi in a long list of other dolls, #*Bindi Irwin: By far the only and the biggest challenger with around 60,000 views, can be disambiguated with a hatnote. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!07:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, though I may be wrong, this article is one of the only places to refer to this review as "periodic". Of the Boundary Commissions, they all refer to it as "2023 Review of Parliamentary constituencies", with England shorting it to "2023 Review" and Wales to "2023 Parliamentary Review", whilst Scotland and NI do not shorten it in their titles. The HoC calls it "Boundary review 2023", the BBC a "Boundary review" and from a Google search of "2023 periodic review of Westminster constituencies" the only link on the first page that uses that wording is to this page. Additionally this review is not "periodic" continuing from the previous reviews, referred to as as such with ordinals on Wikipedia and other sources, according to legislation, as amended in 2020, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the Boundary Commissions to report "(a) before 1 July 2023,(b) before 1 October 2031, and (c) before 1 October of every eighth year after that." As Wikipedia is meant to use titles which are in common use and recognisable, I propose that the title be changed and any references to it as well.LandmarkFilly54 (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
(Discuss) – Madhouse in Maryland → Hail Maryland – Irrelevant title that should be changed to one that is more recognizable. Per WP:COMMONNAME. The commentating from the CBS broadcast does not completely defend the title under the subjected quote "It's a madhouse in Landover, Maryland!" where "Landover" causes a break in the article title. "Hail Maryland" also provides a scope of the article, similar to Hail Murray, which is suggested per WP:PRECISE. Vataxevader (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Bensci54 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Oneiric Diary → Oneiric Diary (book) – Current undabbed title is a redirect to the cartoonist Jim Woodring, where there is a brief mention of a "notebook with blank pages" in a table of his works. The entry is unsourced (aside from a link to the ISBN search, for whatever that's worth) and shows no evidence of notability. Meanwhile, the EP is a full article which shows clear notability (per NALBUM, given its sales and certification). Seems like a clear-cut PTOPIC to me, with the hatnote on the Woodring article moving over and pointing the other way, and a nice new dabbed redirect for the book. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Junta of Communities of Castilla–La Mancha → Regional Government of Castilla–La Mancha – WP:COMMONNAME establishes that articles should use the "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". Currently, there is a situation in which names for articles on regional administrations in Spain use various, differing names that do not exactly conform to COMMONNAME: the Castilla–La Mancha is frequently referred to as "Regional Government" by such sources ([15][16]), with no source other than those based on the en.wiki using "Junta of Communities"; the same happens to Castile and León ("Regional Government" rather than "Junta", [17][18][19]); Galicia ("Regional Government" as opposed to "Xunta", [20][21][22][23]; note that President of the Regional Government of Galicia already uses the English common name); and, to some degree, Extremadura (the current title uses "Government", but the word "Junta" is typically translated into "Regional Government", [24][25][26]; as well as the addition of "Regional" adding consistency with the other articles as well as with President of the Regional Government of Extremadura and Regional Government of Andalusia). The aims of this RM are to 1) seek conformity of these articles' names (and related articles) with COMMONNAME, and 2) harmonize the names of institutions named similarly in their original languages but depicted in various different ways in the en.wiki, despite no clear exception to WP:ENGLISHTITLE applying. Impru20talk 09:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mac Gargan → Scorpion (Mac Gargan) – "Mac Gargan" should be renamed to "Scorpion (Marvel Comics)" to reflect his more iconic and widely recognized identity, consistent with naming conventions for other Marvel characters (ex. Spider-Man, which exclusively talks about Peter Parker, despite other incarnations) ModlordD (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer → Carl Switzer – Carl Switzer follows the standard naming convention and is unambiguous. Furthermore, it is the more WP:COMMONNAME[27] and (not a policy reason but still) it feels insulting to reduce a person to one role, even if it is by far their most famous one. We wouldn't move Mark Hamill to Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hammill. Fram (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Dongui Bogam → Donguibogam – This spelling is more popular, per this ngram: [28]. Also matches spellings used by the South Korean govt [29][30] and UNESCO [31]. Note that this spelling uses Revised Romanization of Korean; normally for pre-modern things we use McCune–Reischauer per WP:NCKO/MOS:KO, but in this case because it's covered by UNESCO and pretty famous in Korea RR may be more appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Northeastern United States drone sightings → 2024 United States drone sightings – I know we just did the move from New Jersey to Northeastern United States but at this point, it's gone coast to coast, the midwest, and the mountain region -- everyone but Alaska and Hawaii going by time zone now has these, as confirmed by the United States military. We may as well do due diligence and keep up. On the plus side, once this is done--assuming it doesn't spread past the USA--we're done. And if it goes further, we can always just do 2024 North American drone sightings and so on. But this ought to settle the naming of the article for a while. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Schuster (footballer) → Schuster (Portuguese footballer) – Bernd Schuster played for Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid and Germany. A footballer called Schuster is much more likely to be a reference to Bernd. Google Book search is skewed by references to the publisher Simon & Schuster, but still every search for "Schuster football" or "Schuster footballer" points to Bernd if referring to a person. I won't buy the argument that Bernd Schuster has a first name: if a random footballer in Bermuda took the nickname "Messi", is he "Messi (footballer)" because the real one has a first name? Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gascon dialect → Gascon (language variety) – The precise classifcation of Gascon is controversial. While most scholars consider it to be a dialect of Occitan, Posner and Sala note that it is less comprehensible than Catalan (which is typically classified separately from Occitan) to other southern Occitan speakers. Moreover, Gascon has a standardized variety, Aranese, with official status in the Val d'Aran region of Catalonia, which differs from the literary standard of Occitan. Kristol 2023 asserts that Gascon was "already considered a specific language in the Middle Ages," and Carles and Glessgen 2024 refer to Occitan and Gascon as "two languages." As the terms "language" and "dialect" are ambiguous and somewhat subjective, linguists tend to circumvent extralinguistic polemics by using the term "language variety" to refer to a linguistic system. By characterizing Gascon as a "dialect," the current title appears to clash with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by favouring a traditional but contested view. The term "language variety" would be a more useful characterization, as it would avoid the use of the ambiguous term "dialect," which tends to evoke social, historical, and political considerations rather than strictly linguistic ones. Conocephalus (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.cyberdog958Talk 18:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – HomeKit → Apple Home – Proposing page be renamed Apple Home to reflect the name of the platform, whereas the current name (HomeKit) is one of two supported software frameworks that work inside the platform. The intro sentence should also be rewritten to something like "Apple Home is a smart home platform that uses the HomeKit and Matter software frameworks. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre → 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria – Consistency. This article should be named like 2024 Homs airstrikes or April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Because these air strikes are organised for enemy sides of the perpetrator's and some civillians killed in those air strikes. This title means that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, therefore we cannot seperate this air strike from other 190 air strikes. All of them are carried out within 2024. The content also mentions the death toll from other airstrikes. Also these airstrikes belongs to Hasakah province, Raqqa province and rural Aleppo. This title mentions 11 civilians in Raqqa province but how about other 6 civillian deaths in Hasakah province? If you look at death toll, military personnels also killed besides civillians and this means that Turkish Air Force didn't target civillians especially. Also it's ridiculous to target little amount of civillians in a village. If Turkish Air Force want to kill civillians, bombing big city centers is more efficient way like Israel did in Gaza Strip. Therefore that title is biased and we cannot named this event as a massacre just for killed civillians because more military personnels killed in these air strikes. Seondly, wikipedia there's a village named Mustariha and it's located at Idlib. However news says it's a village in the suburbs of Ain Issa. I cannot find location of the village. It's very interesting. All in all, this article should be moved to "2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria" However we can use northern Syria but I'm not sure about geographic naming. Note: If the title I propose is appropriate, the content should be revised accordingly, because it gives the impression that the attack was made specifically for this village and targeted especially civillians in this village.--Sabri76'talk 17:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Janet Mead → Sister Janet Mead – Subject is best (only) known as Sister Janet Mead. Use commonly recognizable names WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". WP:STAGENAME. "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title," That is Sister Janet Mead. Whilst WP:TITLESINTITLES does say titles like "Sister" are "not generally used to begin the titles of biographical articles" it specifically states an exception "to form the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known". If you brought up Janet Mead to people most people would have no idea who you are talking about. Whereas Sister Janet Mead many people would immediately know, that Sister that sung the Lords Prayer. Just google "Janet Mead" and see the results. (Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL[36][37][38][39][40]) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – First London → First London (1997) – It may be very early days, but First have just announced they are returning to London operations with the acquisition of RATP Dev's London operations (incorporating Dev Transit London, London United and London Sovereign).[4] Given the scope of the original First operation before it was broken up in 2013, reviving this article for the new operation might be a bridge too far and bound to cause some confusion. As such, unless anyone has a better name proposal for the article, I propose the above move with the option for First London (2025) to incorporate the ex-RATP operations. Hullian111 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Hullian111 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Template:NF → Template:NFLD – Most Canadian provinces have just one flag template named with the province's two-letter postal abbreviation as the template name; this one is a special case because the province's name was changed from just "Newfoundland" to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001, necessitating separate "NF" and "NL" templates because the province name next to the (same) flag needs to be two different things based on whether it's a pre-2001 or post-2001 context. However, because the Spanish Wikipedia uses the template name "NF" as its basic "formatting the vital statistics of people on biographical articles" (birth year, death year, defaultsort name, etc.) template, there ends up being a constant need to monitor this template for incorrect "vital stats" uses on articles, drafts and user sandbox pages that have been translated or just copy-pasted over from Spanish. So because of that extenuating circumstance, I believe that there's a substantive case for treating this template as a special case that varies from the titles of its other provincial siblings to avoid that problem — and since "NF" is an old, no longer used postal abbreviation rather than the current one, the variant won't be nearly as difficult to justify as it would have been if the conflict were affecting "NL". Accordingly, I propose that this template use the province's original postal abbreviation "NFLD" instead of the two-letter transitional form "NF", with all of its (thankfully not that many) uses updated to the new name, and "NF" not retained as a redirect so that we stop having to deal with the flag of Newfoundland being wrongly placed at the bottom of Spanish and Mexican and Latin American biographies. Alternatively, if there's a way that "NL" could be coded to enable a "Newfoundland and Labrador" vs. "Newfoundland" switch, we could just add that and move all the NF uses to NL-with-switch, but I wouldn't know how to do that (or even if it's possible), although it might even be a better solution than moving this if it is possible. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – World Masters of Snooker → ? – The tournament in the current 24/25 season has been renamed Riyadh Season Snooker Championship. General tournament pages generally reflect the most recent name of the event. Possible suggestions from me include Snooker Championship—not ideal because it sounds vague and could be confused with the World Championship—and Riyadh Season Snooker Championship—also not ideal because it includes the sponsor name, going against convention. I would welcome other suggestions. KDayne (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mel Edwards → Melvin Edwards – Switch to the full name of the subject of the article. Edwards is rarely referred to by "Mel" in publications. He is referred to as "Melvin" in The New York Times as far back as 1993 1, 2, 3, 4; Artforum as far back as 1965 1, 2, 3, 4; The Boston Globe; The Dallas Morning News; Hyperallergic; a range of other art publications/news outlets; and all of the subject's monographic books (1993 Neuberger Museum of Art; 2015 Nasher Sculpture Center; and 2018 Sao Paulo Museum of Art). 19h00s (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Island Cove (Cavite) → Island Cove POGO Hub – As per WP:NATURALDAB, the main subject of the article is referred to as the "Island Cove POGO Hub" (or POGO Hub in Island Cove) which is officially known as PAGCOR POGO Hub Covelandia a name rarely used by WP:RS. While the islands have a history of hosting resorts (Island Cove), main subject of the article is the casino hub which catered to an overseas market Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Debbie Mathers → Debbie Nelson – Debbie Nelson is the name her autobiography was published under and is used in the majority of headlines about her death[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] List of results:[51] It appears by far to be her WP:COMMONNAME, with an exception being this Guardian article which refers to her as Debbie Mathers three times (including the title) and Debbie Nelson once. According to The Independent, "She was known as Debbie Mathers at the time of Eminem's birth, but reverted to her maiden name Debbie Nelson after realizing she had become famous through her son’s lyrics."[52], with another article implying she was formerly known as Debbie Mathers.[53]Rolling Stone says she was going by Debbie Mathers-Briggs in the early 2000s[54] which is backed up by a contemporary article by the BBC.[55]Billboard and the BBC use the name Debbie Mathers to caption an image of her in 2005 since that's the name she was using then.[56][57]Miklogfeather (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Georgian LGBT propaganda law → Georgian anti-LGBT law – For consistency and unbiased approach. This law is not only about "propaganda". It targets same-sex adoption, trans rights, pride flags and more. It's obvious that this Georgian law is much harsher and explicitly homophobic than those laws passed in Hungary, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan and Bulgaria. It even designates 17 May (IDAHOBIT) as a holiday for the "sanctity of the family and respect for parents". If that's still not enough, I don't know what to say. I'm wondering why is this merely a "propaganda law" while the Hungarian law is labeled a Hungarian anti-LGBT law? Where is the Wikipedia's consistency? Cyanmax (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Brand New Dance → Brand New Dance (album) – The Eminem song has almost five times as many page views per day as the Emmylou Harris album. As Eminem is a much wider known artist overall, I think it would make sense for his song to be the primary topic. At the very least, the Emmylou Harris album should not be the primary topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Quinn brothers' killings → Murder of the Quinn brothers – Garfield Gilmour was convicted of murder, therefore the page should be titled as murder, not killing. While his conviction was downgraded to manslaughter, it was not because the crime was not deemed to be murder; rather it was because he had only driven the killers to the scene, and the court found that he himself did not have murderous intent, and was not aware that the others did.[5] However, the actual bombers were found to have acted with murderous intent (by using a larger than usual bomb that would be expected to cause death or grievous bodily harm), therefore the crime should be considered a murder.--Tulzscha (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Frost01:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – East Timor → Timor-Leste – Previous moves have established that Portuguese sources, Australian sources, CIA, UN, and others do use Timor-Leste which arguably makes it common name, but previous moves failed because Timor-Leste is supposedly a political name. It is not. In Indonesia, the country from which Timor-Leste gained independence, Timor-Leste is the name of the country, and East Timor (province) is the name of the former province. Timor Leste (without the dash) is the article title of the country in the following languages: Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Basa Bali, Jawa, Sunda, Acèh, Minangkabau. Timor Timur (translation of East Timor without disambiguation) is the article name of the province in the following languages: Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu. The languages are explained in the following paragraph. Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian language) is the lingua franca of Indonesia and is a variant of Bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) is the lingua franca of the region including countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and others. Basa Bali (Balinese language) is the language in Bali, the exotic island in Indonesia. Jawa (Javanese language) and Sunda (Sundanese language) are languages in Java, the most-populous island in Indonesia. Acèh (Acehnese language) and Minangkabau (Minangkabau language) are languages in Sumatra, the second most-populous island in Indonesia. I view the arguments made in favor of previous moves have been consistent with policies and guidelines. In this move, I aim to provide assurances to the remaining holdouts, moving the page is at least as safe as retaining the status quo. If this succeeds the province can now be the primary topic for East Timor. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – The Potato → ? – I have not found evidence that this film's English name is "The Potato" as compared to just "Potato", or indeed if this film has an English name at all. Most, if not all, of the sources seem to use the original Finnish name "Peruna". Note that there is also confusion with an earlier, entirely unrelated, film called "Potato". JIP | Talk06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Joaquín → Joaquin – If all 42 bulleted entries listed on the Joaquín page were accented, then the main title header should likewise retain the accent mark. However, since 12 of those entries do not use an accent and, since on English Wikipedia, it is necessary to type "Joaquin" to access this page, Joaquín should redirect to Joaquin, rather than the other way around. It may be also noted that a similar page, listing bulleted points under the header, San Joaquin, does not use the accent mark. — Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)02:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Template:Rulers of the Ancient Near East → Template:Rulers of the ancient Near East – Per WP:TPN, which recommends to "follow standard English spelling, spacing, and capitalization", i.e. WP:SENTENCECASE in our case. Previously, User:Emesene renamed the template to "Rulers of the ancient Near East", but User:पाटलिपुत्र (template creator) reverted it back, saying "Actually, Ancient is often capitalized in this case, see sources". For the record, the very first source in the template is Hallo, W.; Simpson, W. (1971). The Ancient Near East and it reads as follows: "This new history of the ancient Near East meets an insistent demand." (first page of "Preface" at the Internet Archive). Please, also note that The Ancient Near East is written in title case because it's the book's title. Russian Rocky (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Joseph Quinn (actor) → Joseph Quinn – This page is clearly the primary topic for this article name, especially when comparing to other articles of the same name. The only article with this exact name is Joseph Quinn (murder victim), which rarely receives any pageviews compared to this page. In fact, this page receives the overwhelming majority of pageviews when compares to other pages listed on Joe Quinn. Therefore, I think this is reasonable to move. Hummerrocket (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anita White → Lady A (singer) – The controversy doesn’t preclude us to have two articles with the same title. The two entities clearly use the same name professionally so why should their articles not reflect that. She clearly uses her WP:NICKNAME professionally so it must be the name of her article. The band, however well-known only used the name recently so WP:RECENTISM is a factor. There is absolutely no reason why the two artists can’t share a name especially since they have settled it in a lawsuit. There is clearly WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC with the name Lady A since the singer has used the moniker longer but since the band is more popular. Theparties (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)03:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Islamic State → Islamic State (militant group) – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in First Islamic state page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Wikipedia should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction. I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.Therealbey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) – Gwon Yul → Gwon Yul (general) – Seems to be a conflict between the two WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Gwon Yul currently does not meet the criteria for primary topic by usage WP:PT1: of the three ambiguous "Kwon Yul" articles, the army general is last in pageviews. Over the last year, the other two Kwon Yul articles have received an average monthly pageviews of around 15,000, while the army general has received only 1400. [62] However, by WP:PT2 (long term significance), the army general is obviously the primary topic. Given the conflicting criteria, and what seems to be a very large pageview disparity between the army general and the other Kwon Yul articles (army general receiving 10x less traffic), I thought it'd be appropriate to open a discussion to see if the army general is indeed the primary topic or if there is WP:NOPRIMARY here. A move here would also involve retargeting the redirect left at Gwon Yul to Kwon Yul (which is the same name, 권율, just romanized slightly differently) RachelTensions (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Cabinet of Germany → Federal Government of Germany – "Federal Government of Germany" is the natural, precise, concise and above all consistent title. On the other hand, "Cabinet of Germany" is not commonly recognizable and not a title that readers are likely to look or search for if they wanted to find the German government.[6][7] Furthermore, the current title is colloquial and legally (see Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, sixth section, "VI. The Federal Government") and technically incorrect. The title also differs from all other search engine results on this topic and the official website itself[8].
(Discuss) – Ji-yeon (name) → Ji-yeon – Ji-yeon is currently a redirect to an episode of Lost (TV series) named Ji Yeon. Over the last year, the redirect has received an average daily usage of one. [68]Ji-yeon (name) should be moved to Ji-yeon because it's clear that the redirect to the lost episode "Ji Yeon" is not being used, and the episode's name is specifically "Ji Yeon", not "Ji-yeon". Other ways of presenting the name, including Jiyeon and 지연, already redirect to Ji-yeon (name). I think a hatnote on the name article pointing to the Lost episode for readers who have decided to search for the hyphenated version would be sufficient. RachelTensions (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Peter Wherrett → Pip Wilson – As per the recent RfC in 2023, specifically subtopic/question 1, the clear consensus regarding MOS:GENDERID is that for deceased persons, we still should principally use the most recently expressed gender identity prior to their death. We should therefore be using Pip Wilson to refer to the subject of this article, as that was the most recently expressed name and gender prior to her death. The key meat of that RfC: "Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?", to which the answer was "There is clear consensus to amend MOS:GENDERID as proposed.". GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Saskatchewan Progress Party → Saskatchewan Liberal Party – While the current name of the party is the Progress Party, it is not the most notable name this party had. Under its current name, the party has never had a single MLA and finished last in only election (2024) it ever ran in under its current name. A good precedent would be the Alberta Social Credit Party, its current name is the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, but it is still known by its older, historic, more relevant name. Like the Alberta Socreds, the Saskatchewan Liberals were a prominent party under its historic name. They elected premiers and either led the government or led the opposition. An alternative proposal would be to WP:SPLIT the article into two articles: one for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and one for the Saskatchewan Progress Party. This would be similar to how there are separate articles for the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party and the Yukon Party. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Priyanka Gandhi → Priyanka Gandhi Vadra – Almost all reliable news sources in India and abroad - and her own social media profiles use the name Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. She also uses it in her campaign material. Using her maiden name does not make sense for consistency in the article aswell. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink) The comments from there have been reproduced below for convenience. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Expectation of privacy (United States) → Reasonable expectation of privacy – Adjusted proposal per the outcome of the one above. This legal doctrine originated with the Katz ruling in 1967 and subsequent cases using that as a precedent have adopted the more precise phrasing "reasonable expectation of privacy". Also, the article's text as developed over the years focuses on the precise legal doctrine rather than a vague value. Note that this particular proposal would require a round-robin move due to an old mistargeted redirect, which I have the permissions to do. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story. The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true. So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Larries → Larry Stylinson – Since it's been almost two and a half years since the no consensus close of the previous move request, I thought it might be time to bring this discussion back up again. A good article title is consistent, and all the conspiracy theory articles that I have examined (see Category:Conspiracy theories) use the title of the theory, not the believers. For example, there is no anti-vaxxer article; there is only a Anti-vaccine activism article. There is no Flat-earther article; there is only a Modern flat Earth beliefs article. Other ships (see Category:Slash fiction) also use the name of the ship, not the fandom, albeit this is a unique topic in that it is about real people. In the last discussion, I heard that this article is somehow different in that the scholarship is more about the believers than the theory, but that isn't exactly true. For one, there is also scholarship documenting the actual theory. But also, the psychology of the believers is also central to other conspiracy theory articles (e.g. Modern flat Earth beliefs § Sociological explanations for counterfactual beliefs), which all still use the name of the theory. Additionally, "Larry Stylinson" is certainly more precise. "Larries" could potentially refer to multiple "Larry"s or "Larrie"s, or, as the ngram viewer shows, industrial/mining equipment. Although one could argue that the ship is the more common interpretation, it certainly hasn't been historically (and we aim to avoid WP:RECENTISM), and changing the title to "Larry Stylinson" would remove all possible ambiguity. BappleBusiness[talk] 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Keiki-dō → Keiki Province – I think "Provinces" may be more appropriate, but still not sure. I moved all the other Korea prefecture pages from "-dō" to " Prefecture" following the category name, but @robertsky pointed out " Province" may be more appropriate. "Prefecture" has kind of a loose definition, per Prefecture and Prefectures of Japan. The nature of prefectures in various countries differs; it's not really clear to me how these differ from provinces, esp given that colonial Korea was governed differently from Japan. Both "prefecture" and "province" seem to be variously attested to for Korean provinces (as well as the use of transliterations of Korean names for Korean places during the colonial period). English terminology for Korean history is notoriously inconsistent. Reading Prefectures of Japan, it seems like "道" is also used for prefectures, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that it would extend to Korea. Provinces of Japan seems to suggest that Japan itself adopted the prefecture system in the late 19th century, but that doesn't necessarily cover Korea. However, recent RS on the colonial period seem to use "province" for this period (although these all seem to write from Korea-centric perspectives; using Korean-language terms for concepts during the colonial period). * [75] * [76] * [77] * [78] Edit: more sources (see below for my analysis of the situation) * [79] * [80] * [81] * [82] *[83] * [84] (this book uses Korean names for concepts that existed before the colonial period, including the provinces, and Japanese names for everything created during) In short, I think there's a WP:COMMONNAME argument to use "Province" instead of "Prefecture". Either of the two is certainly better than the previous "-dō". seefooddiet (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia07:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
