Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 20: Line 20:
{{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}}
{{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}}
-->
-->

*{{anchor|movereq-Spøgelsestoget}} '''[[Spøgelsestoget]] → {{noredirect|Ghost Train International}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Spøgelsestoget}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Ghost Train International}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial ({{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requested moves|oldid={{REVISIONID}}#{{anchorencode:movereq-Spøgelsestoget}})}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' – per [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films]] – [[Special:Contributions/86.180.255.89|86.180.255.89]] ([[User talk:86.180.255.89|talk]]) 10:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 10:08, 22 November 2010

Closing instructions

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.
  • 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

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

Undiscussed moves

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 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 the sub-section Current requests immediately below 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.

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}}.

Otherwise list new uncontroversial requests at the bottom of the the sub-section "Current requests" immediately below this section using {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} (rather than copying other 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 in Current requests, please re-list it in the Contested requests section below.

Current requests

Contested requests

Object you recently rewrote the article. It should go to full WP:RM to determine whether to split the article with a new one for classical, or move the article, and create a new article at cepheid. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussions

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.

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. 70 discussions have been relisted.

August 8, 2024

  • (Discuss)Lucy LetbyTrial of Lucy Letby – Lucy Letby is notable for her trial. A check on Google Trends shows that "Lucy Letby trial" is more common a search term over time than "Lucy Letby". Most of the issues concerning weight and BLP would be better handled if the subject of this article was the trial, rather than Letby. A large volume of intellectually independent, reliable, secondary source material casts significant doubt on the judicial system and the outcome of the trial and should be properly, neutrally covered. Say ocean again (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 7, 2024

  • (Discuss)'Till You're Gone'Til You're Gone – or Till You're Gone. The article cites four sources. Three of them (all from Billboard, unfortunately) are online sources, and none of those use a double L. The track listing for the album on AllMusic uses a double L, but it doesn't have the apostrophe. AllMusic seems to have song entries for 'Til You're Gone and Till You're Gone, but not 'Till You're Gone. Including both an apostrophe and a double L seems strange. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gurjara-Pratihara dynastyPratihara dynasty – "Pratihara dynasty" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by this graph. This compare the usages of both "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" to "Pratihara" + "Pratiharas" after excluding the usages of "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" from the graph of "Pratiharas". This graph clearly shows the prevalence of simply "Pratihara(s)" over "Gurjara-Pratihara(s)" by a very large margin, i.e, more than 4 times. In my course of editing for Wikipedia, I've seen that scholars usually use simply "Pratihara" more than "Gurajara-Pratihara". It also seems like this would be a more WP:neutral point of view name. PadFoot (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)World Rowing FederationWorld Rowing – I believe the COMMONNAME is World Rowing, which is what they consistently use fro themselves. There are examples out there of using World Rowing Federation but I think they're rare. World Rowing is also more CONCISE. For what it's worth, World Rowing Federation is not the official name. According to their Bylaws, the official name is still FISA, but "World Rowing is the designation used operationally by FISA." In searching for references online it's tricky to separate references to World Rowing from the World Rowing Championships, but here are some recent examples: [2] [3] [4] JFHutson (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)In a WordIn a Word (disambiguation) – On Allmusic and Amazon, the band's name and the date range are not included in the title – this box set is simply called In a Word. On the cover art, the band name and date range also appear very separated from the main title, which is simply "In a Word". The band is identified by its elaborate logo on the cover art – not using plain text, and the date range is shown separately in a small difficult-to-read font. There is only one other topic on the disambiguation page, which is a non-album song by Toto released as a B-side (of "I'll Be Over You") and then later on a compilation album (Toto XX). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 16:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Universal Classic MonstersUniversal Monsters – By far the common name. It was a massive mistake to have it moved years ago, I don't recal if I supported it then, but if I did (which is possible) it was probably under the delusion that we would eventually have separate articles for the classic releases, the overall grouping of the characters by Universal and the Dark Universe, hence three articles to cover everything in depth. As the Dark Universe never became a thing there is no reason to not just cover everything in the same article by the common name (unless someone wants to put in extra effort into having Universal Monsters and Universal Monsters (1931–1956) to cover only the classic period. But that seems unlikely as of now.) ★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Lille OSCLOSC Lille – The current title is wrong in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Firstly, the club's official name is not "Lille Olympique Sporting Club"-- that's what it used to be. Today, the club's entire official name is "LOSC Lille". "Lille OSC", the current title, is used by nobody both in common and official usage. In media, the club is often referred to as "Lille", "LOSC", and often times as "LOSC Lille". We could move the title to just "LOSC", but since the English-language "short" name for usage in articles is just "Lille", this wouldn't really work smoothly. I say we should go by the club's actual name in this specific case, which is also really commonly used in sources, only third to Lille and LOSC (which I don't believe are valid titles.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Israeli allegations against UNRWAUNRWA and Israel – This request follows previous lengthy discussions and a rough consensus as to whether there should be a separate page covering the relationship between Israel and UNRWA. This entails a spin out of relevant material from the main UNRWA article, already in hand, to be added to this article. The change in scope is simply that all of Israel relations with UNRWA, which take up much unnecessary space at the main page, will be covered here rather than merely the recently concluded spat. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kaveen BandaraKavin Bandara – The correct name is Kavin Bandara and not Kaveen Bandara, which may mislead readers. The current name is incorrect and does not reflect the individual's actual name, potentially causing confusion and misinformation. Correcting the name to Kavin Bandara ensures accuracy and reliability of information for all readers ... GanganaB (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 6, 2024

  • (Discuss)Gandhi (disambiguation)Gandhi – While Mahatma Gandhi is no doubt a legendary figure in world politics, it is hard to say he's the overwhelming topic of the name “Gandhi” to qualify for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Two former Indian Prime Ministers also bared this surname, along with some very notable and contemporary politicians, meaning such there are also differing usages in contemporary times.
    According to wmcloud for the past 30 days, Mahatma Gandhi has gotten around 305,000 views. Rahul Gandhi around 187,000, Indira 178,000, Rajiv 91,000, Feroze 88,000 and Sonia 65,000 among others. This shows that even though Mahatma Gandhi is a likely subject when looking up Gandhi, it is not the primary topic which views and notability are significantly and definitively ahead of all other topics combined. A quick look on the “news’’ section on Google with the term Gandhi appears to be also primarily about other Gandhis such as Rahul instead of Mahatma.
    For the reasons above, it is in my belief that the term "Gandhi" should be the disambiguation page instead of redirecting to Mahatma. Zinderboff(talk) 21:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)1976 British Isles heatwave1976 United Kingdom heatwave – This article, like other articles on so-called "British Isles heatwaves" focus almost entirely on the United Kingdom. There's nothing wrong with that, but it pushes the logical thought should this page not be titled "1976 United Kingdom heatwave"? Ireland is mentioned in only one sentence. The page is entirely about effects on the United Kingdom. Even the section on "Government response" is entirely UK by default, as if Ireland had no government response. It makes sense to rename this page, and move the one sentence on County Offaly to the European page for 1976. Copying my comment from above on this talk page. Thank you. Wikiejd2 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Korean table d'hôteHanjeongsik – See #Don't love the title... above; "table d'hôte" is somewhat opaque to even many English speakers. If you're familiar with Korean cuisine, there's a good chance you know about hanjeongsik using that terminology; it's seen as pretty quintessential in Korean dining, and even available abroad outside Korea to an extent that many other Korean dining concepts aren't. However, I'm on the fence about this move, think it could go either way. As for whether to use a hyphen in "han(-)jeongsik", I think no hyphen is more standard, per [5]. seefooddiet (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 5, 2024

References

Infopetal (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 16:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)IOC Refugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer OlympicsRefugee Olympic Team at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Hey all! I believe this article title should be simplified for a couple of reasons: # Concision: Per WP:CONCISE, we need to balance brevity with sufficient information. IOC Refugee Olympic Team may be the official name of the team, which was the rationale for the move to the current title, but I see absolutely no reason to essentially say "Olympics" three times in this title. # Consistency: WP:CONSISTENT says article titles should be consistent among similar articles. The team and their participation in 2016 and 2024 all start their titles with Refugee Olympic Team at while this is the only article starting with IOC Refugee Olympic Team at. I think this is a very clear case for both of these policy sections, but I would like to check for consensus from the community. Fire away! Bsoyka (tcg) 03:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)NRA (disambiguation)NRA – The disambiguation page was moved from NRA to the explicit DAB in 2018 based on the BOLD consensus of two editors, with "NRA" redirected to National Rifle Association (of America) as "Primary Topic". Primary Topic-ing a Three-Letter-Acronym is not unheard of (e.g. NBA) but it is very unusual and requires exceptional evidence. It certainly requires more than:

    The NRA is in the news a lot, around the world, with increasing coverage in recent times. Wouldn't it make sense to redirect the page to National Rifle Association...

    This is basically "What first comes to mind" and represents a Systemic bias violation, which should be reconsidered per WP:GLOBALISE. Wikinav shows that a clear 35% of traffic to "NRA (disambiguation)" comes from "National Rifle Association", and 75% of outbound traffic is to National Recovery Administration. This suggests a non-trivial number of users are being erroneously sent to "National Rifle Association" via overzealous redirects. Pageview stats show that "National Rifle Association" very narrowly has the highest monthly avg over the past two years, but is not consistently the most-viewed article (in June 2024 "National Rifle Association" had 12800 views, second to "National Revolutionary Army" with 15300). * National Rifle Association: ~20,000/mo * National Republican Army (Russia): ~17,000/mo * National Revolutionary Army: ~15,000/mo * National Recovery Administration: ~5,000/mo. National Rifle Association is top, but not overwhelmingly so - far less than the next two articles combined. The current redirect does not fit with the normal considerations for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current redirect clearly does not satisfy WP:PT1 for Usage since it's usage does not reliably exceed other topics even individually, much less "all the other topics combined". It might be argued that it qualifies under WP:PT2 for Significance, but the pageview data indicates this is probably a US/anglophone-centric projection since the next two topics are Chinese and Russian in origin. Even within the US, the dominance of the National Rifle Association is context-specific since other orgs have major local significance - e.g. the National Restaurant Association is known as "the other NRA" in Washington DC lobbyist circles and is nationally significant, even if it gets fewer column inches in the NYT. Likewise, other National Rifle Associations (in the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand) are variously referred to as "the NRA" locally. Perhaps surprisingly, there really isn't enough here to justify "National Rifle Association" (of America) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "NRA". Hemmers (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Wyatt (disambiguation)Wyatt – This is a misplaced disambiguation page. In 2016 the page "Wyatt" was split into a surname and a given name page, and moved to Wyatt (surname) with comment "Split given name and surname, and seems more appropriate to call this page 'surname' now", leaving "Wyatt" as a redirect to it, and leaving this long-established dab page at its disambiguated title. There are enough placenames and other uses that there seems no obvious primary topic, so this dab page should be at the base title. PamD 09:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 4, 2024

  • (Discuss)Register (sociolinguistics)Socio-linguistic register – Parenthetical disambiguation, as used today, is kind of a last resort. Sociolinguistic is a bit squished for new readers, so I prefer a hyphen for first use, including in the title and lead sentence. I want the title to be easily parsed by readers who have not heard the term "Sociolinguistic" before, or even the prefix "Socio-". Simply Linguistic does not disambiguate enough: see Register (disambiguation)#Linguistics. Register as a base name does not meet my understanding of WP:COMMONNAME; I understand it as requiring the low-context variant (i.e. not the term used in the middle sections of papers in the field). As long as the full term is used in the titles of some papers in the field, I believe the full term should be considered to meet WP:COMMONNAME. And, well... this full name is used in the bodies of some papers, at least. And "linguistic register" is used in plenty of paper titles, but we've ruled that out for other reasons. My understanding of WP:COMMONNAME seems to be borne out by success in move discussions I started: from "Inflation (cosmology)" to "Cosmic inflation"; from "Transformation (genetics)" to "Genetic transformation". But I think it's time for me to start a discussion on the MOS talk page itself about this "low context vs high context" thing, since it may exist only in my mind at the moment, or as a non-obvious implication of other core CRITERIA for article titles. All that said, I believe Socio-linguistic register is the best title for this article. The hyphen or entire prefix can and should be dropped for most subsequent uses within the article. Jruderman (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 3, 2024

  • (Discuss)Oregon TheatreOregon Theater – The spellings "theater" and "theatre" are not quite interchangeable. In theory, "theater" is the American spelling while "theatre" is the British spelling. In practice, the British spelling is often used in the US – mostly, I suspect, because it looks more refined to the American eye. So either spelling is "correct," but this article should use the spelling the theater itself used: "Oregon Theater." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2, 2024

  • (Discuss)Human Genome ProjectSequencing of the human genome – I have been in contact with a smart person who, during high school, heard that "The human genome project has been completed" and decided that genetics was no longer worth pursuing. This kind of confusion is really bad on the Precision criterion for article titles. Also, the HGP benefited from genetics research not done explicitly under the banner of HGP. For these two reasons, I believe that a WP:NATURAL title would be more appropriate than the current WP:COMMONNAME title. Ideally we will select a name so natural that it can work as an unpiped link in prose, such as Sequencing of the human genome or alternatively Initial mapping of the human genome. Of these two natural titles, "sequencing" is shorter, more accurate, and already a redirect to this article. Jruderman (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Salem stationSalem station, Massachusetts – This is not the primary topic for Salem station, since Salem Junction railway station in India is. Salem Junction is usually simply referred to as Salem station as Salem Town and Salem Market stations are much smaller and not nearly as used. For instance, in this The Hindu article talking about the redevelopment works it says Salem railway station, and this Hindustan Times article about a train robbery. To support the claim Salem Junction in India is the primary topic, if we look at the pageview stats, Salem Junction, TN gets about 4-10x the page views than Salem station, MA regularly and has about 25x the passenger usage. In terms of historical significance, both are pretty old, however the fact that Salem Junction is a much bigger and busier station than Salem station, MA and has many more page views makes me think it should be the primary topic, or at the very least Salem, MA should not be the primary topic. Therefore I think WP:PT1. Propose redirecting Salem station to Salem Junction railway station. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 09:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Doctor (Doctor Who)The Doctor – The definite article 'the' in the title designates this topic as the primary one for 'The Doctor' (but only with the definite article). This is consistent with titles such as The Guardian, The Signpost, The Postal Service, The Edge, The 1975, and The Undertaker. A Google search for "The Doctor" returns results related to Doctor Who, as does a Google image search. Similarly, a Google News search returns Doctor Who-related coverage. While a search for "The Doctor" on JSTOR for produces variable results, a search for "The Guardian" on JSTOR wouldn't establish the newspaper as the primary topic alone. A Google Ngram analysis reveals that the term 'The Doctor' saw an increase in usage in 2005, coinciding with the show's revival. Worldwide Google Trends indicate that "The Doctor" is predominantly used in reference to searches about Doctor Who, per the 'related topics' and 'related searches'; with a notable peak in November 2013, coinciding with the show's 50th anniversary special. This 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) has more coverage from reliable sources than others (with the definite article) listed on the disambiguation page. Amendment: Pageview Analysis (with a date range of 'All time') comparing all of the pages titled 'The Doctor' show that this topic has more views by a clear margin. It is limited to 10 pages, so I've split it into two: first second. On Wikipedia this topic is the most sought after 'The Doctor' (with the definite article) on the entire site. Note: When researching, "The Doctor" should be enclosed in quotation marks as some databases often exclude definite articles. Svampesky (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 03:07, 02 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)GargoyleGargoyle (architecture) – There's no obvious primary topic here between the architectural element, and the legendary and/or fictional monster of living stone. While the architectural element gets more views (approx. 700 daily vs. 200 daily), according to Wikinav, 20% of the people coming to this page click through to the monster one instead, indicating coming here was potentially accidental, making the difference a fair bit less (560 vs. 200 when you subtract from one). This is not far apart enough to indicate any primary topic existing at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 1, 2024

  • (Discuss)ABC News (United States)ABC News * ABC NewsABC News (United States) * ABC News (disambiguation)ABC News – Australia's ABC News is its national broadcaster and is its most widely watched newscast. The Australian broadcaster reaches 8 digit levels of people on a weekly basis, while the U.S. company averages around 7 million on nightly newscasts. And, in absolute terms, Australia's ABC is quite a major news organization. I don't think the U.S. subsidiary of Disney is more of a WP:PTOPIC here, so I propose moving this to the proposed target and moving ABC News (disambiguation) to take over this page's title. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JuniperChill (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. —S Marshall T/C 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Baek Jong-wonPaik Jong-won – This is the WP:COMMONNAME spelling and closer to what I think is his preferred spelling of "Paik Jong Won" (based on his YouTube channel, although the titles of his videos use a variety of spellings lol; probably hired translators). Common name proof: exact google news search for "Paik Jong-won" yields 381 results, and "Baek Jong-won" yields 300 results with more spurious results due to overlapping people names. I can't find evidence that the "Paik Jong Won" spelling is used much; news coverage of him tends to use "Paik Jong-won". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)R VaishaliVaishali Rameshbabu – This page used to be at Vaishali Rameshbabu. It was moved only because her brother's page was moved, even though this page was barely part of that discussion. Also at the time, Vaishali's name on her FIDE page was "Vaishali R". But since then, she changed her FIDE name to the full "Vaishali Rameshbabu", while her brother remains at "Praggnanandhaa R". In most cases, we set the page name on Wikipedia to be what it is on the FIDE website, so we should do that here. (From media sources, there is no clear preferred choice whether to abbreviate or not. Some abbreviate, others do not.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Shin Hye-sunShin Hae-sun – With the continuing rise in popularity of actress <Shin Hae-sun>, the spelling of her English name has been up for debate for quite some time. Since her debut in School 2013, many have spelled her name as <Shin Hye-sun>; others have spelled it as <Shin Hae-sun> (a difference in Hye or Hae). In recent years, many have pointed out that her own signature and places like her agency (YNK Entertainment under IOK Company) spelled her name with Hae, yet, many sources continued to spell it as Hye since it was the most common spelling since her debut (Hye is also a common spelling amongst other Korean celebrities like Park Shin-hye and Kim Hye-yoon, adding to its credibility at the time). Here are some other reliable sources that correctly spells her name with Hae: KoBiz, The Korean Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily, and The Korea Times. It was only until last year that the actress added her English name to her Instagram account, spelling it herself as Hae. But due to the immense commonality of Hye across the internet, there wasn't a big change in how articles/sources/new fans spelled her name. As such, I am proposing that we change the spelling of her name to Hae, rather than Hye, as to fix the misinformation that is still at large. It is only right that we respect how the actress spells her own name. Imanomynous (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Palestinian genocide accusationPalestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tales of the Jedi (TV series)Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Eights WeekSummer Eights – While referred to as Eights Week in the past, the event is far more commonly known as Summer Eights today. All University, College, and town publication, including all material from the actual organisers refers to the event as 'Summer Eights', not 'Eights Week'. Additionally, as referred to by the last move request back in 2016, there are far more common results for Summer Eights than Eights Week in search engines. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. OxfordRowing (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)AscalonAshkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name. I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names. 1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article. 2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [30], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tonlé SapTonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all. In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake). So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation. My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is: #Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or, #Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page. The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel7 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)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

References