Wikipedia talk:Requested moves

Enter the title (or part of a title) to search for after "intitle:", then click "search"

Try other variants (e.g. "move discussion") to broaden or narrow your search

{{Page moves}}

FYI Template:Page moves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My close of Willem Bonger

I stumbled across this requested move, which seems to have been started because a redirect was incorrectly targeted. Once that was fixed, there was one !oppose vote, a relist, and no other participation. I closed it as "not moved" – should this be "not moved" or "no consensus", and does my close look good? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a fine close, in my opinion. There was no further comment after the relisting, and your analysis of the situation seems to be correct. There may well be consensus now that the redirect has been corrected, so "not moved" is fine, especially since you left the door open for further discussion if anyone disagrees. Station1 (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Move Czech Republic to Czechia

Throughout the year Czechia has replaced Czech Republic as the name by many organizations. These include

IOC - https://olympics.com/ioc/czechia

European Union - https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/country-

European Broadcasting Union - https://eurovision.tv/countries

UEFA - https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/country/seasons/#/yr/2023</nowiki>

UN - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoC

NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm</nowiki>

Discussions have also taken place at Talk:Czech Republic. In the top discussion I can see that

Against the move is:

Largoplazo (talk) - Argues that it that "the Czech government has not recommended using Czechia, but just declared "Czechia" to be a legitimate "short form" name for the country".

Cimmerian praetor (talk) - Argues that "Czechia is no more common name than the Czech Republic". However I think this lacks evidence as the links above show that it is a more common name. This comment is also from February, possibly before those organizations updated their name of the country.

In favor of the move is

Chrz (talk) - Has argued for the move for a longer time, and most recentely linked to this https://www.czechia.eu/

filelakeshoe (t) - Has said that whilist having opposed the change before, he now supports it.

Doric Loon (talk) - Argues that Czechia has become a more common name

Isametry (talk) - Argues that there is no reason to stick with status quo, when it's clear in his opinion that "by reading the room" Czechia has become more common.

Asheiou (talk) - Argues that the government has recommended Czechia

2001:8003:908F:BB01:184C:2D88:E7D6:5CCB (talk) - Says that "All notable international agencies are now using Czechia instead of the Czech Republic"

Patrik L. (talk) Uses the name change by IHHF and FIFA as an argument.

FusionSub (talk) - Supports, and argues that it's just as we say France and Italy instead of French Republic and Republic of Italy

Thomediter (talk) - I think the 6 above organizations is what should finally make this move a reality.

Hope you will consider the move. Thomediter (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RM#CM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you want to do? Thomediter (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't process requests for controversial moves here. Open a 'Requested move' discussion on the article's talk page as described in the linked page instead. – robertsky (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding me right now???? There have been a discussion for 3 months now, and I just wrote the conclusion of that on here, because nothing happended. Thomediter (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the discussion in question is Talk:Czech Republic § Rename to Czechia, which was started in February but was not a formal RM so never had any "formal" close. Primefac (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There's also Talk:Czech_Republic#Rename_to_Czechia_as_Germany,_France,_Slovakia_or_Poland slightly below. And probably some others since the last RM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the relatively large attendance at the original discussion that I linked, I am considering adding the RM template to the top in order to do two things: reach uninvolved individuals and also to get a mechanism for a formal close. I'll leave this for a bit but if there's no opposition I'll do that in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, although it's not strictly necessary to use the formal RM process, reaching uninvolved individuals helps us avoid local consensus situations and the discussion has already been brought as far as this page, so that sounds like a good route. Dekimasuよ! 12:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The existing discussions are quite messy. It is not immediately obvious why the article should be moved. It might be better to start a new discussion that includes the arguments and evidence for the move as part of the nomination. That might help ensure the subsequent discussion is more orderly. There is a high risk the new discussion will end up as messy as the old ones, but I still think having a proper nomination is worth it. Vpab15 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not strictly necessary, but considering the 6 preceding RM:s, I think it's reasonable to do it the formal way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree this needs a formal RM to close. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see Talk:Czech_Republic#Requested_move_11_May_2023. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind; apparently I need to have my own opinion to file a procedural nomination... wtf. Thomediter, if you want this resolved, file an RM yourself. I tried. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an extremely contentious area, and one that has chewed a lot of editor time over the years. From the history of the talk page, we see there have been six full RMs over the years, none of which really came close to a consensus to move, and several moratoria. When there isn't an RM ongoing, we get a constant trickle of comments on the talk page questioning why the name isn't Czechia, such as the one alluded to above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång urged participants in that discussion repeatedly to open an RM discussion, but they declined to do so. Obviously consensus can change, as we've seen at other longterm questions such as Kiev/Kyiv, Burma/Myanmar etc, and perhaps the time is right for another discussion. But if it is to happen now, it needs to be initiated by someone who supports the change, and give full reasoning and evidence as to why the WP:COMMONNAME has changed, compared with the last discussion two years ago. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Apologies for the tantrum. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, and apologies from me too, if my tone was Over-hostile to your good-faith actions... Not sure what it is about online interactions that turns us into demons!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. The editor who opens the RM can obviously pick the arguments they like from the talkpage or the archives, but because history, just starting a new WP:RM#CM is the way to go (for those who thinks it's a good idea). I recently saw an IP start one, it's quite doable, the instructions at WP:RSPM are not that complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I will gladly do that :) Thomediter (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Depends what you compare with. 16 people is many for a regular talkpage discussion, but the last RM had 51 people. And 200 more comments. Also, the OP in the discussion you liknked gives no reason why the article should be moved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question: How should the closer take into account arguments from the past few months on the talk page? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

That's up the closer. Afaict, relevant arguments are supposed to be made in the actual RM. If there's anything in particular you think they should look at, you can link or quote it here, like the OP did. WP:APPNOTEing users is a possibility. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Move "Universal's Islands of Adventure" to "Universal Islands of Adventure"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The name of the park has been officially been changed on the Universal Orlando website and in the park's logo.

Sources:

• https://www.universalorlando.com/web/en/us/theme-parks/islands-of-adventure
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Islands_of_Adventure_2023_logo.png
• https://wdwnt.com/2023/03/universal-orlando-resort-unveils-redesigned-logos/
• https://orlandoparkstop.com/news/theme-park-news/epic-universe-update-possible-name-changes-new-construction-and-harry-potter-ride-permits/

SaltieChips (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move suggestion: The Center for Art in Wood to Museum for Art in Wood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page The Center for Art in Wood should be retitled Museum for Art in Wood because that is its name as of January 30, 2023.

However, I cannot see a way to do this within my account.

Also, many pages currently link to The Center for Art in Wood that would need to be redirected to Museum for Art in Wood when the title changes.

Please advise. MuseumMan141 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move requested for Japanese Wikipedia page 「キングス・イレブン・パンジャーブ」 to 「パンジャーブ・キングス」」

The name of the Indian Premier League (IPL) team Kings XI Punjab (KXIP) was changed to Punjab Kings (PBKS) on 17 February 2023. [1] [2] The Japanese Wikipedia page of the team still has the title 「キングス・イレブン・パンジャーブ」 and should be changed to 「パンジャーブ・キングス」. SomanshuAikat5142 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@SomanshuAikat5142 For pages on Japanese Wikipedia, proceed to ja:Wikipedia:移動依頼. – robertsky (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

On relists

Currently the guidance on these pages say that discussions are usually only relisted at most once. This is not the case—a significant fraction, perhaps even a majority, of elapsed listings have 2 or 3 relists at any given time. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See this discussion which also deals with multiple relists. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Side tangent, but I think we really need to further discourage relisting without a comment. I've seen RMs where it's not clear what the relister wants to see. A relist should nudge the discussion towards getting a consensus, not just start a new timer, and most of the time if you don't leave a comment, you're just starting a new timer.

If I don't have a strong idea for anything relating to the move, I'll usually let it sit in the backlog. Sometimes I'll support or oppose discussions from the elipsed listings/backlog, sometimes I'll relist if I need to see one or two things to see consensus and leave a comment along with the relist, but I don't remember the last time I relisted without leaving a comment. (I don't feel too comfortable with no consensus closes yet, so I usually let those go and leave them in the backlog.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Move Operation Valuable to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania

I wanted to ask if someone could help me to move the page from Operation Valuable to 1949 Anglo–American invasion of Communist Albania. I even made a discussion about it on the talk page 2 times and so far it was only one user who argued with but this one was a sockpuppet. I have given sources and also explained why the page should be moved.[[[Talk:Operation Valuable]]] Best regards NormalguyfromUK (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)