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
m →‎Current requests: fix formatting, add explanation
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-L'italiana in Algeri}} '''[[L'italiana in Algeri]] → {{noredirect|L'Italiana in Algeri}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:L'italiana in Algeri}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:L'Italiana in Algeri}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial ({{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requested moves|oldid={{REVISIONID}}#{{anchorencode:movereq-L'italiana in Algeri}})}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' – Noun based on national origin should be capitalised as it is in Italian WP. I tried to make the move, but got the message that the page already existed [[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
'''<nowiki>{{subst:RMassist|L'italiana in Algeri|L'Italiana in Algeri|Noun based on national origin should be capitalised as it is in Italian WP}}</nowiki>'''
*{{anchor|movereq-Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}} '''[[Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās]] → {{noredirect|Return of Sergeant Lapins}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Return of Sergeant Lapins}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial ({{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requested moves|oldid={{REVISIONID}}#{{anchorencode:movereq-Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}})}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' – International English title, per [[WP:NCF]] <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 08:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
*{{anchor|movereq-Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}} '''[[Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās]] → {{noredirect|Return of Sergeant Lapins}} ([{{fullurl:Special:MovePage|wpOldTitle={{Urlencode:Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}}&wpNewTitle={{Urlencode:Return of Sergeant Lapins}}&wpReason={{Urlencode:Requested at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] as uncontroversial ({{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requested moves|oldid={{REVISIONID}}#{{anchorencode:movereq-Seržanta Lapiņa Atgriešanās}})}}&wpMovetalk=1}}}} move])''' – International English title, per [[WP:NCF]] <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 08:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Revision as of 13:50, 5 December 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.
  • 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 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

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.

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. 51 discussions have been relisted.

July 21, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian 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)[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)[reply]

July 20, 2024

  • (Discuss) – STEAM fields → STEAM education – The Slate article cited in the first sentence states that STEAM is not just a collection of five fields, but a movement to integrate creative thinking and design skills into STEM education. And this is how much of the article describes it. But the first sentence defines it as a collection of five fields, and the presence of "fields" in the title reinforces that definition. I think the lede would be more consistent with the sources and with the rest of the article if we change the title to something like "STEAM education" or "STEAM movement" or just "STEAM", and change the first sentence to something like:
    STEAM education is an approach to teaching STEM subjects that incorporates artistic skills like creative thinking and design.
    Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ascalon → Ashkelon (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 [2], 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]

July 19, 2024

  • (Discuss) – 2024 CrowdStrike incident → ? – Two reasons: the first is that the lede of this article is straightforward; it instead say that there is an outrage, before saying how, where the title is derived from. Second, most reliable sources often refer this event as an outrage. The title should at least be moved to a title containing "outrage". ToadetteEdit! 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tonlé Sap → Tonlé 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) – The Sun → The Sun (disambiguation) – I know, I know, the last discussion on this exact topic closed with consensus against. But the policy on the matter is clear, and the last discussion barely touched that policy at all. WP:PTOPIC says, first, that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. With the wikinav entry showing that 2/3rds of people who visit the page are looking for Sun, that criterion seems to be met. You can argue that 2/3rds isn't high enough, but it's twice as likely than every other candidate combined. PTOPIC also says that A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. With all due respect to the newspapers, the Sun meets that criteria with flying colors. I don't see how it could be argued that the thing that sustains all known life doesn't have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than a couple of moderate-to-large companies. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Covanta → Reworld – Covanta was renamed to Reworld back in April. Since then, most people have been using the new name. This is not a controversial move, but I'm using this tool to request a move on account of my COI - I work for the article-subject. I'd also like to suggest a redirect from Covanta to the new Reworld title, replacing "Covanta" with "Reworld" throughout, and adding a "(previously known as Covanta)" at the beginning. NKR2009 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vespina (aircraft) → Airbus Voyager ZZ336 – I am a close watcher of aviation generally and military aviation specifically, and I had no idea what this article title referred to. WP:AT states that when article titles have multiple possibilities, "editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." None of those are true to "Vespina (aircraft). Being strictly factual and naming it as <Aircraft (i.e. general type name)> <Registration (denoting specific aircraft> is much clearer. The current name is vague in the extreme. Mark83 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Quadrantal (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sněžka → Śnieżka – The mountain, located on the border between Poland and the Czech Republic, is widely recognized by its Polish name, "Śnieżka", in international contexts. The usage of this name aligns with global recognition and common usage in various languages, including English. Śnieżka is the highest peak in the Karkonosze Mountains and a prominent feature in both Poland and the Czech Republic. Given its location and significance, using the Polish name honors its geographical and cultural importance within Poland. Wikipedia’s naming conventions emphasize using the most common name in English, and "Śnieżka" is frequently used in English-language texts and references. This change would thus enhance consistency and recognizability for English-speaking users. Other geographical features with dual names often default to the version that holds the most international recognition. Renaming the article to "Śnieżka" follows this precedent and ensures coherence across Wikipedia entries. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Nusantara → Nusantara (disambiguation) – When this move was nominated a year ago, the primary reason against such move was that it was too soon with the city then only in its planning stages along with doubts whether or not the city would even be completed. Now, in about a month the city would become the new capital of Indonesia, which I argue would make it the primary topic. The city also gets significantly more views than other topics with such name. Zinderboff(talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 15, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Eights Week → Summer 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions → Finalissima – I do not understand how the December move request was opposed. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, the title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. The majority of the sources in the article uses Finalissima or Artemio Franchi Cup (which I hope we can agree is an outdated name), and very little refer to it as the "CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions". In fact source 1 of the article states that the "Cup of Champions" refers to the trophy and "Finalissima" is the tournament. Even a Google search of "CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions" gives you results on the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and European Rugby Champions Cup with ESPN the only major site that (outside of Wikipedia) that returns this tournament. Google "Finalissima" on the otherhand and it returns results for this tournament from sites such as Sky Sports, BBC, The Guardian, and most importantly UEFA. The women's and fustal version of the tournament have been named "Finalissima". So why isn't the men's if article naming is supposed to be consistent? Mn1548 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise – This is my second attempt at this move request. The first was closed to no-consensus with a 3 support 2 oppose back in March. I am going to attempt to address some of the criticisms of the move raised in that move request and just more fully flesh out the reason this article should be moved. As before the grounds for the move are WP:COMMONNAME. In this ngram you will see a comparison of the relative popularities of Henri de Guise, Henry de Guise, François de Lorraine and Francis de Lorraine [19] Ngrams are not my favourite method of determining popularity as they tend to be crowded by noise, therefore I will primarily be using google scholar results, restricted to results in English publications since 2000 for a better understanding of the modern usage. Francis of Guise = 53 results Francis of Lorraine = 199 results Francis de Guise = 7 results Francis de Lorraine = 6 results Francis, Duke of Guise = 98 results Francis, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis, duc de Guise = 4 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 9 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Total for Francis = 379 (give or take, there will be some noise in Francis of Lorraine/Henry of Lorraine and François de Lorraine/Henri de Lorraine due to other people of the same name) François of Guise = 11 results François of Lorraine = 20 results François de Guise = 230 results François de Lorraine = 210 results François, Duke of Guise = 76 results François, Duke de Guise = 5 results François, duc of Guise = 0 results François, duc de Guise = 83 results François of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 results François of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results François de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 18 results François de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 59 results Total for François = 716 (same disclaimed as above for Francis). 716 vs 379: a decisive majority of scholarly usage for the name François. Henry of Guise = 105 results Henry of Lorraine = 52 results Henry de Guise = 31 results Henry de Lorraine = 24 results Henry, Duke of Guise = 115 results Henry, Duke de Guise = 6 results Henry, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry, duc de Guise = 13 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 11 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Henry of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results Total for Henry = 363. Henri of Guise = 23 results Henri of Lorraine = 21 results Henri de Guise = 225 results Henri de Lorraine = 129 results Henri, Duke of Guise = 64 results Henri, Duke de Guise = 2 results Henri, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri, duc de Guise = 87 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 1 result Henri de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 7 results Henri de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 27 results Total for Henri = 588. 588 vs 363 another decisive margin. The google scholar searches for Henri function as evidence for both Henry/Henri I, and Henry/Henri II, as using the numerals would massively depreciate the numbers returned. In addressing the point raised by Srnec in the prior move, we have a majority in English scholarship for the names François and Henri, we do not have a majority for duc de Guise over duke of Guise for the article title (131 duc vs 209 duke for Henri and 149 duc vs 205 duke for François). Beyond the statistical evidence in support of its common usage, I would like to also draw on particular scholarship as I did for my first move request. This will be based on English language scholarship covering the periods of the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion covering the life span of François and Henri I, I have less specific scholarship examples for Henri II, however he is covered in a couple of these and the statistical evidence. The first and most important work is the recent (2011) biography of the Guise family 'Martyrs and Murderers: the Guise family and the making of Europe' written by the historian Stuart Carroll. This biography refers to the dukes as follows: François, Henri, Henri. There is also the recent work by the historian Mark Konnert in which they are a title feature (Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595)) which likewise uses François and Henri. I will include the survey of academic English literature I included in my first move request, with slight additions for academics I have since become aware of. Gould [history of the French Wars of Religion in the south of the kingdom] (2006) = François; Roelker [biography of Jeanne d'Albret] (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht [biography of Catherine de' Medici] (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf [history of Paris in the prelude to the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre] (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts [history of the peace making efforts during the wars] (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland [history of the secretaries of state in the era of Catherine] (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri;; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon [introduction to French sixteenth century history] (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts [biography of Henri IV of France] (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François; Spangler [chief historian of the Guise family in the 17th century, i.e. Henri II] (2016) = Henri, Heap (2019) = François, Henri. Tingle [history of Nantes during the French Wars of Religion] (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu [dissertation on Gaspard de Coligny] (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri Holt [biography of the duc d'Anjou] (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood [military history of the early French Wars of Religion] (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name In some of the above I have detailed the nature of the book in square brackets to indicate the mixture of popular biographies, introductory surveys and more focused studies of various institutions and regions that build this picture. In addition to my common move argument, it is also of note that the article for the seventh duke of Guise is at François Joseph, Duke of Guise so the present state of affairs in addition to violating common usage, also creates a weird discordance in the line of dukes. sovietblobfish (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity".[1] It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.

References

  1. ^ "What is gender-based violence? - Gender Matters". Council of Europe.
TRCRF22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=400666217"