Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Karppinen (talk | contribs)
5,654 edits
→‎Current requests: another request
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 24: Line 24:


* '''[[:Bling Bling (B.G. song)]] → {{noredirect|Bling Bling (song)}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Bling Bling (B.G. song)}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Bling Bling (song)}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' — There are no other notable songs with the same title. [[User:Karppinen|Karppinen]] ([[User talk:Karppinen|talk]]) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''[[:Bling Bling (B.G. song)]] → {{noredirect|Bling Bling (song)}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Bling Bling (B.G. song)}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Bling Bling (song)}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' — There are no other notable songs with the same title. [[User:Karppinen|Karppinen]] ([[User talk:Karppinen|talk]]) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

* '''[[:Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo]] → {{noredirect|Uyghur captives in Guantanamo}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Uyghur captives in Guantanamo}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' — This article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghur_detainees_in_Guantanamo&diff=305259311&oldid=305189435 was moved] from ''"Uyghur captives in Guantanamo"'' to ''"Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo"'', with no discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary claiming that ''"Uyghur captives"'' lapsed from NPOV. I request the restoration of the previous name, and request those in favor of the current name go through the proper procedure for changing the name. I point out that in September 2008, ten months prior to this move, the DoJ and DoD acknowledged that they never had any evidence to justify holding these men, without charge, for the previous seven and half months. Our articles, and our articles' titles ''should not'' be biased. We should not adopt the extreme terms used by partisans on either side of a debate in our articles. And ''"detainee"'' is an explanation of an extreme term from the one side of a discussion. No one called prisoners ''"detainees"'' prior to the opening of the controversial Guantanamo camp. The term was picked by spin doctors because of the false air of normalcy it gives the extraordinary captivity of these men. The use of the term ''"detainee"'' falsely implies that the indefinite [[extrajudicial detention]] is routine, mundane, and sanctioned by the rule of law. The use of the term ''"detainee"'' is inappropriate for the several hundred men, held without charge, who have never had a meaningful opportunity to learn and refute the allegations that triggered their detention. It is doubly inappropriate for the 22 Uyghurs, whose captivity is is now acknowledged had never been justified. Some human rights workers refer to these men as ''"kidnap victims"''. We wouldn't use that term either. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


==Contested requests==
==Contested requests==

Revision as of 14:49, 21 March 2010

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. See also Category:Requests to move a userspace draft.

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.

Uncontroversial requests

If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If you cannot move the page yourself, then request it below. Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require assistance from an administrator or confirmed user.

If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), the template {{db-move}} can be used instead to have that page deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6. Note that this template requires two parameters: {{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}}.

If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. Otherwise, post your request in this section. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not necessary) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) If this reversion requires administrator assistance, it is also eligible to be listed here. When listing this kind of request, please include a link showing that you have attempted to discuss the page move first.

Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required.

If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the Contested requests section below.

Current requests

  • Ester Böserup → Ester Boserup — The name of this Danish economist is Ester Boserup but was redirected to the incorrect name by [82.69.64.163] 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC). This error only appears in the English-language Wikipedia. (Footnote: The character "ö" is not used in the Danish language; "ø" is used instead.) Wikiborg4711 (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo → Uyghur captives in Guantanamo (move) — This article was moved from "Uyghur captives in Guantanamo" to "Uyghur detainees in Guantanamo", with no discussion on the talk page, and with an edit summary claiming that "Uyghur captives" lapsed from NPOV. I request the restoration of the previous name, and request those in favor of the current name go through the proper procedure for changing the name. I point out that in September 2008, ten months prior to this move, the DoJ and DoD acknowledged that they never had any evidence to justify holding these men, without charge, for the previous seven and half months. Our articles, and our articles' titles should not be biased. We should not adopt the extreme terms used by partisans on either side of a debate in our articles. And "detainee" is an explanation of an extreme term from the one side of a discussion. No one called prisoners "detainees" prior to the opening of the controversial Guantanamo camp. The term was picked by spin doctors because of the false air of normalcy it gives the extraordinary captivity of these men. The use of the term "detainee" falsely implies that the indefinite extrajudicial detention is routine, mundane, and sanctioned by the rule of law. The use of the term "detainee" is inappropriate for the several hundred men, held without charge, who have never had a meaningful opportunity to learn and refute the allegations that triggered their detention. It is doubly inappropriate for the 22 Uyghurs, whose captivity is is now acknowledged had never been justified. Some human rights workers refer to these men as "kidnap victims". We wouldn't use that term either. Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested requests

This is the place for a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. Proposals that remain here after seven days will be removed.

Current discussions

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

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. 66 discussions have been relisted.

October 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tedcastles Oil Products → Top Oil – This business has not been known as Tedcastles Oil Products since the 1990s, and has been known as Top Oil since 1998. This is its common name, by which most people would recognise it. Most people would never have heard of Tedcastles Oil Products. The business is owned by Irving Oil, so it's not even that the current article title reflects its owner's name. Gatepainter (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Grey parrot → Congo grey parrot – The Timneh parrot was traditionally considered a grey parrot. Continuing to call the species Psittacus erithacus the "grey parrot" after the split is incredibly misleading, suggesting that the Timneh parrot is still included, even though it is not. Common names do not have type specimens/species. They are population-based, not type-based. If the concept of "grey parrots" included Timneh parrots prior to the split, it must continue to do so. I understand that Clements Checklist calls the Congo grey parrot "Gray Parrot", but in the minds of most people "grey parrot" and "African grey parrot" still refer to the entire genus. Grey Clownfish (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[1] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Benjamin Harrison (Niehaus) → Statue of Benjamin Harrison – Per WP:VAMOS, which says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere)." --Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2024

October 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Motukorea → Browns Island (New Zealand) – Motukorea is an obscure name people are not familiar with. Article titles should be recognisable to the average person. The names have roughly equal usage in sources with many different forms provided but Browns Island is far more recognisable to Aucklanders. Browns Island (Motukorea) is the legally recorded name of the island although such a title might suggest it is the Browns Island of Motukorea. See link below for data on search Traumnovelle (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stonewall riots → Stonewall uprising – The Stonewall uprising was a civil rights movement, a rebellion, and an uprising. It was never about "riots" and was never meant to be so in the first place. Quoting Stormé DeLarverie: Stormé on Stonewall "It was a rebellion, it was an uprising, it was a civil rights disobedience -- it wasn't no damn riot", declared Stormé at a public and videographed SVA-sponsored "Stonewall Symposium", referring to the historic 1969 Stonewall Rebellion. Stormé was a part of the uprising on the very first night, Friday, June 27th 1969. "The cops were parading patrons out of the front door of The Stonewall at about two o' clock in the morning. I saw this one boy being taken out by three cops, only one in uniform. Three to one! I told my pals, 'I know him! That's Willson, my friend Sonia Jane's friend.' Willson briefly broke loose but they grabbed the back of his jacket and pulled him right down on the cement street. One of them did a drop kick on him. Another cop senselessly hit him from the back. Right after that, a cop said to me: 'Move faggot', thinking that I was a Gay guy. I said, 'I will not! And, don't you dare touch me.' With that, the cop shoved me and I instinctively punched him right in his face. He bled! He was then dropping to the ground -- not me!"[1] — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 09:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – CBS Weekend → CBS WKND – This is the official branding for the block, this shouldn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines to use it on the title, using "CBS Weekend" for the title is disruptive to me in my opinion, and could cause confusion for other articles with similar titles in it, including CBS Weekend News, although some users in the previous move discussion said that "CBS Weekend" reads better to them, it's an unofficial branding and is disruptive to me to use it instead of "CBS WKND." 2603:6081:893D:13AC:7100:943E:5C15:68C0 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neopanax colensoi → Pseudopanax colensoi – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA - overwhelming usage within recent scientific papers, despite mixed use in taxonomic databases. Without a clear scientific basis for a preference of one name over the other, MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES: that there is a clear consensus among New Zealand scientific sources for a clade of plants endemic to New Zealand. *Neopanax and Pseudopanax together form a clade. Currently there are three morphological forms of the species within this clade - two are always described as Pseudopanax, while one (the more basal form) is sometimes described as Neopanax and sometimes Pseudopanax. page 52 of this thesis has a useful graph showing phylogenetic relationships within the group. Neopanax was synonymised with Pseudopanax in the 20th century, re-established as a genus in 2004, but the justification of this was disputed in 2009. The distinction appears to be one based on conventions rather than a clear scientific justification (i.e. less based on whether or not Neopanax is a distinct clade within Pseudopanax, and more based on whether it's justified to use a different name for this clade, or to continue to use the pre-2004 convention). This issue was previously discussed at WikiProject Plants. *Different taxonomical databases use different preferred names. Pseudopanax is overwhelmingly used by New Zealand databases. **Pseudopanax preferred: NZ Flora, Biota of New Zealand, IUCN, iNaturalist, NZOR and NZTCS **Neopanax preferred: CoL, EoL, GBIF, IRMNG, NCBI, OTOL, POWO *Recent scientific sources outside of taxonomic databases overwhelmingly prefer Pseudopanax. Looking at Post-2020 Google Scholar results for species within the Neopanax clade:

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Juan Fageda → Joan Fageda – His birth certificate may well say the Castilian name Juan and he would have been forced into that name for the first 40 years of his life, but personal preferences and modern sources strongly prefer the Catalan name Joan. Going by WP:OFFICIALNAME we would have William Clinton and Anthony Blair. Fageda's website is joanfageda.com and this letter on it is signed as Joan [24]. Third-party sources in Castilian are using Joan [25] even the conservative El Mundo [26] and the nationalist OKDiario [27] so this is not editorial Catalanism, something that the subject as a People's Party politician is exceedingly unlikely to support Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Joseon → Chosŏn – I'm proposing this mainly to poll opinions in the manner of an WP:RFC, as well as to try and illustrate how our new MOS works. If you're a regular on any Korea topics, I encourage you to think about what I'm discussing here because similar principles will apply to many other moves that may happen in the near future. Context: # "Chosŏn" is the McCune–Reischauer ("MR") romanization of 조선. "Joseon" is using Revised Romanization ("RR"). # We recently rewrote MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. As part of this, MR is now recommended for all pre-1945 topics. Before the rewrite, RR was recommended for pre-1945 topics (except, confusingly, for people names lol...). Thoughts: # Relevant policies: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. These policies are also the foundation for MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. # Coverage in RS: #* MR and "Chosŏn" are used by almost all Korean history academic journals ([28][29]). #* In my experience, practice in books is more divided. Well-respected and widely used history books almost universally use MR and "Chosŏn". All other books (including less reliable pop culture books about Korea) seem to use RR and "Joseon". This divided use can be somewhat seen in the close race on Ngrams, which measures mentions in books. However, if we prioritize the most reliable sources, this still leans towards MR. #* News and pop culture tend to use "Joseon", like Poong, the Joseon Psychiatrist. #* Together, this suggests that academia uses "Chosŏn", but average people may use "Joseon". # Since this article was created 21 years ago in 2003, it has never gone by "Chosŏn". Moving it to that has seemingly never even been requested. I think this clearly suggests that Wikipedia editors have a preference for this spelling. #* Wikipedia's use of the spelling also possibly influenced global use of the spelling as well. #* Oh, and it's also annoying to type the diacritic letter (ŏ); it's frustratingly not easily available on Mac, PC, or iPhones. In short, there's basically three relevant groups here: academic historians (prefer MR), average people around the world (RR), and Wikipedia editors (RR). I think this move should be decided by how much you want to cater towards each of these groups. I want to hear other arguments or want others to weigh in. I'm actually leaning towards "Joseon" being more appropriate. I think Wikipedia is meant to be used by the average person, and clearly both average people and Wikipedia editors prefer that spelling. But I'm leaving open the possibility for "Chosŏn" to happen. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Uralic Phonetic Alphabet → Finno-Ugric Transcription – This is the traditional term. Salminen (2024) writes Finno-Ugric Transcription has occasionally been called the “Uralic Phonetic Alphabet”, which is a misnomer for every word in the term, as “Finno-Ugric” has been included in the name of the system from the very beginning, the system is decidedly linguistic rather than phonetic, and it by no means constitutes an alphabet. Note the use of the word "occasionally", which means we have both a reliable and recent source for the fact that "Uralic Phonetic Alphabet" is not the primary name. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Best friends forever → Best friend – We have separate Wikipedia articles for Girlfriend and Boyfriend, also for "Significant other", and not only for Friendship but also for specific types of it (Romantic friendship, Cross-sex friendship, Friend zone). Thus I am surprised both that there is no such an article for the topic of best friends and that this sentence has an article of its own. I propose expanding the scope of this article to cover the topic of best friends in general. The sentence itself could have a section of its own if necessary. There's a bigger amount of academic research on the topic of best friends than one might initially expect [30], so there'd be stuff to write about in such an article. Most sources in this article seem to already cover the relationship in general rather than only the sentence. Even some of the text in this article itself already does this (see last paragraph at "Academic studies" section). The article needs rework anyway (some sources are informal, see OUPblog or barbaradelinsky.com; and some of the article's redaction is strange, see In 2010, the BFF concept was a part of a BFF contract "to encourage the signatories to work through their differences before splitting up."), and I think expanding its scope would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Picross → Picross (video game series) – Picross is the name of the pencil-and-paper puzzle which serve as the basis for these video games, that previously was a redirect to Nonogram which is the more common name for those puzzles. In terms of this move, the pencil-and-paper topic is far more the PRIMARYTOPIC than this video game series which is based off that. Note that this would also mean a recreaction of the Picross to Nonogram redirect after this move. Masem (t) 00:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 3, 2024

  • (Discuss) – LGBT pride → LGBTQ pride – The page was moved from Gay pride to LGBT pride a few years ago in recognition that this article is about Pride of the community, not just exclusively the Gay community, despite the term Gay pride still being higher in use than LGBT pride was at the time, so the consensus for the article was explicitly to deviate from exclusively applying WP:COMMONNAME as a compound word in the move in 2022 in recognition that the true common name nowadays is just Pride without any qualifiers. Now as a followup some years later, I propose we move it to LGBTQ pride in recognition of the community continuing to evolve and explicitly adding the Q as was also recently done in the main article LGBTQ (RM discussion) in recognition of LGBTQ replacing just LGBT. The person that contested the bold move argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied, but as I pointed out, this article is already not named in line with strict common name of the combined term, but in recognition of the community as the true common name today is simply "Pride" (in line with the sibling articles Pride Month and Pride parade, which doesn't need a qualifier, so no suffix or prefix is needed to disambiguate) without any qualifiers, but since the article requires a qualifier to differentiate it from just the English word Pride, it was then decided to add LGBT for it, which was the common name for the community at large at the time, consistent with the parent article, which was also LGBT at the time and instead of using Pride (LGBT) it was decided to use LGBT Pride per WP:NATURAL to use a prefix, not a suffix, so the current article title should not be interpreted as a compound word, but instead is just a natural combination instead of suffix disambiguation. Following this now, I believe means we should continue to now also follow WP:CONSUB for consistent titling of sub-articles related to the parent title. This is also supported if we combine LGBTQ pride and Queer pride, which is about double that of just LGBT pride per Google Ngram and this also shows that LGBT pride is on a downwards trend since 2017, while LGBTQ pride and Queer pride both are on an upwards trajectory, both individually, as well as combined having overtaken just LGBT pride since 2016. The other alternative would be to break from the natural title disambiguation and call the aticle Pride (LGBTQ) in recognition that the name of the article is just Pride and that the prefix or suffix are just disambiguators from Pride (disambiguation) terms. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Enhanced interrogation techniques → Use of torture under George W. Bush – It seems like the last time this was debated, much of the content of the page and the WP:RS consensus was not present. Now, the article itself shows near unanimous agreement that EIT = torture. I don't have a good replacement name, but the current name has about as much support as "Shower Rooms in Nazi Germany". For example: "According to ABC news in 2007, the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of acceptable interrogation techniques in 2006." If these techniques were "enhanced", why are they no longer used? Even the group the put that name out there doesn't believe in the techniques anymore. It was a branding exercise, not a meaningful summary or specifier on the techniques used. Compare to Enhanced driver's license and Enhanced Fujita scale. I just skimmed the article and the only people I could find calling it not-torture in the modern-ish era are: Bush administration officials, and NPR in 2009 (15 years ago). NPR has since published the term in scare quotes[2], leading one to wonder how useful the descriptor is. I notice the page for Armenian genocide is not the "events of 1915" (one of the Turkish euphemisms for the genocide), for example.

References

  1. ^ Stormé DeLarverie, S.V.A. Stonewall Ambassador * Jewel Box Revue * Imperial QUEENS & Kings of NY
  2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)). — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Quonset Hut Studio → Bradley Studios – The studio that came to be known as the "Quonset hut studio" was the second of two studios (Studio B) at Bradley Studios. Bradley Studios was later purchased by Columbia Studios, who retained the "Quonset hut studio" as Columbia Studio B, but built a new Columbia Studio A as part of the Music Row complex. While Studio B has generally been known as the "Quonset hut studio", it's only part of the story of that recording facility, and even the historical marker at the site is about Bradley Studios and not only the "Quonset hut studio". Now that the article has been expanded to encompass Bradley Studios and later Columbia Studios, I think the article would more appropriately be named Bradley Studios, with a Redirect page for the "Quonset hut studio". synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 19:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Éric Borel → Cuers massacre – This could go either way, but I think this article would be better scoped as an article on the event and not the perpetrator, given WP:BIO1E. Admittedly, a very large proportion of the coverage on the event is about Borel, so even as an event-based article it will probably still largely be about him, but given that he has no notability outside of it and how the event is covered I believe it will be easier to structure and improve as an event-based article. The common title for the event in French is "Tuerie de Cuers", literally Cuers massacre. There were killings in other locations but the sources call it this. This incident is usually referred to without the year in French given how notorious it was (I think it's the worst non-terror mass shooting in France), but admittedly is not too well known overseas so specifying the year may be necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Chevalier d'Éon → Chevalière d'Éon – I did not know about the controversial move procedure, apologies. The reasoning for the move remains the same as previously laid out without dissent having been voiced since (here) In short, the RfC from 2014 was inconclusive in establishing any concensus and since then it has been shown that d'Eon used female pronouns in referring to themselves in letters. The discussion on this talk page since has shown most users believe that this is sufficient to make the change. Given MOS:IDENTITY position on the presentation of transwomen lending towards a consistent portrayal in line with their gender identity, it follows that using the masculine form of the title as 'Chevalier' instead of the feminine form used after their openly announcing their female identity is not in line with the article title policy employed for any other transgender individual. Relm (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2024

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) – Power Four conferences → Power conferences (college football) – While the "Power Five" conferences died with the old Pac-12, it's unclear and too soon to determine if this "Power Four" grouping has long-term significance in the 12-team playoff era. Reliable sources also alternately describe two tiers in the current power structure, with the B1G/SEC as "Power Two" conferences above the Big 12 (diminished by the loss of Texas and Oklahoma) and the ACC (with Florida State and others currently actively trying to break out of the conference). In the moved article, Automatic Qualifying, Power Five, Power Four, and Power Two would all be included as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES in the lead. Power conferences (college football) is a title that is inclusive of both the BCS / Power Five notable historic era that makes up much of the article and both options for the Power Four / Power Two current reality. This is supported by reliable sources:  :Washigton Post, 2023: The Power Five concept that existed for more than a decade is dead. The sport will be framed around the “Power Two” conferences and everyone else for the next decade. “Everyone else” includes a haphazardly assembled, coast-to-coast Big 12, which picked Utah, Arizona, Arizona State and former Big 12 member Colorado off the Pac-12’s carcass to compensate for losing Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Then there’s the ACC, whose East Coast members are leaning against annexing Pac-12 castaways California and Stanford. The article title Power conferences (college football) and/or Power conferences without disambiguation was supported by most participants in the recent requested move, with the closer stating While there's some suggestion that other names may be even better, there's no direct consensus on that... but there is consensus that the proposed name is preferable to the current name, so moved as specified. If people want to explore other moves in future RMs, they can go ahead. I'm doing that now. In my opinion the "(college football)" disambiguation is needed, as Power Six conferences atop the Mid-majors is a term that exists / existed in College Basketball. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [39] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [40] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [44] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso shooting → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting – Per WP:UCRN. Though at the time of the shooting (around 2019) the shooting was more commonly referred to as something in the vein of "El Paso shooting" by reliable sources, in recent years reliable sources trend towards calling it something akin to "El Paso Walmart shooting". Out of 50 articles published since 2020 about the incident, 42 mention Walmart in the title while 8 do not. The 'Walmart' aspect appears to be part of a commonly recognised naming convention, which should be reflected in the page's title. Reliable sources that tended to include 'Walmart' in their titles include CNN, PBS, BBC News, ABC News, AP News, The Independent, the Washington Post, NBC News and others. Local news sources, such as the Texas Tribune and El Paso Times, tended to also refer to 'Walmart' in their titles. I recommend '2019 El Paso Walmart shooting' as it fits other naming conventions. If needed, I can provide several of the referenced articles, though they can be found by Google search. Macxcxz (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

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

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=351167177"