Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Luhungnguong (talk | contribs) at 22:34, 30 August 2009 (→‎Uncontroversial requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrator 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.
Wikipedia:Requested moves/backlognotice

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

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any reasonable possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. 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.

Contested requests

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. If you support a contested move proposal, please consider following the instructions above to add the proposed page move to the "Other proposals" section below by substituting the {{move}} template on the article's talk page. 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. 73 discussions have been relisted.

September 22, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Boost Mobile (United States) → Boost Mobile – The American mobile network operator is the primary topic. Its article received 118,726 page views in the past year, compared to 12,525 for the Australian mobile virtual network operator and 13,993 for the disambiguation page. Boost Mobile United States is more discussed in reputable sources and it has 7.3 million wireless customers. It is one of the four nationwide American wireless carriers, with its own 5G NR network, while Boost Mobile Australia is an MVNO with 700,000 customers. 2018rebel 22:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2018rebel 00:50, 22 September 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)[reply]

September 21, 2024

  • (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 - [5] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [6] - 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)[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] 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) – Flood control → Flood management – A researcher has informed me that the terminology in this article around flood control and flood mitigation is incorrect. It's a confusing matter as these terms are often used interchangably, but they are in fact distinct. I'll be making some edits soon in an attempt to resolve this - apparently flood control is technically more about physical barriers to directly manage flood water while flood mitigation encompasses both flood control measures (physical barriers) as well as non-structural aspects like flood insurance, flood prediction, etc. I proposed this article "Flood control" is moved to "Flood management" as a more general term which would encompass flood control and flood mitigation as well as flood risk management etc. (See also Wang et al., 2020). TatjanaClimate (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 20, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Gender self-identification → Gender self-determination – This page is about the legal human right to determine one's gender in documents. Gender self-identification refers to the act of self-identifying or self-conceptualizing one's own gender identity. Self-determination includes not only the freedom to self-identify, but also the freedom to disidentification (not identifying as something doesn't automatically mean self-identifying as another thing). And thus gender self-determination is more precise and concise. --MikutoH talk! 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Extremely online → Chronically online – Chronically online is the common name. I looked up "chronically online", "terminally online", and "extremely online" with quotation marks on Google, and 933,000, 240,000, 153,000 search results were returned respectively (the numbers may vary, but not the order). Chronically online is also the descriptive name, as chronically and acutely are two different things, with terminally and extremely possibly referring to acutely, which would be an inaccurate characterization. Anecdotally, I hear chronically online slightly more commonly than terminally online while almost never hearing extremely online, which has been backed by the search results. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]

September 19, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Oracle Cerner → Oracle Health – Continuing the rebranding of the Cerner and Oracle Cerner to Oracle Health. Now that cerner.com has been redirected to oracle.com/health, and the page uses the branding of "Oracle Health", I feel as though this is the correct namespace for this page. Of course with redirects from Cerner and Oracle Cerner to the new page name. Tim (Talk) 22:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Altaic languages → Altaic hypothesis – Per above This article has been a constant struggle to get the academic consensus to be the focus of the article, particularly in light of many people simply not realizing the Altaic hypothesis isn't actually widely accepted as fact. "Altaic hypothesis" is heavily used in the literature (i.e. here) and allows us to differentiate the sprachbund and language family arguments more clearly in the body of the article. It also means someone looking up the topic on Wikipedia who isn't familiar with it isn't going to be met with the same heading we use for language families followed up immediately by a statement that it isn't likely a genetic language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Whitewashing (censorship) → Whitewashing (propaganda) – It's not a censorship practice, which is a direct suppression of material, usually by force or threat of force by some entity with power such as a government. It's a propaganda or public relations practice, and that is what the article talks about. Whitewashing is pretty closely related to spin (propaganda) really. "Whitewashing (coverup)" would be reasonable too maybe, and sugarcoat, launder, excuse, and other terms could be in play too; there's no one perfect term, but it says here that "Whitewashing (propaganda)" is the best term. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gyat → Gyatt – "Gyatt" is potentially the more common spelling, at least in my experience online (The provided sources seem split). The Kai Cenat quote in the article describing the word’s expanded popularity from his usage spells it as Gyatt. The disambiguation page currently present at "Gyatt" contains an alternate spelling for guyot that is unsourced and mentioned nowhere on the target article. "Gyat" could merge to "Gyatt", guyot should be removed, and the USS Gyatt linking should be a note at the top. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading of Beans 05:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 18, 2024

  • (Discuss) – 2024 CrowdStrike incident → 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages – Been a few months since the last RM with consensus to move, but a flawed process resulting in no consensus on the new title. I am going to do a simpler RM, one that simply asks if the most popular title, that had an average score of 9/10 in the poll that was run, should be accepted. It seems clear to me the word "outage" needs to be in the title, "incident" is horribly vague an not the common name whatsoever. Its a little bit of a thorny one, since CrowdStrike caused the outage but CrowdStrike doesn't actually deliver the services themselves that crashed (Windows primarily but included other services). "2024 CrowdStrike-caused IT outages" might be more technically correct, however that seems awkward and unwieldy to me. If you don't like the current title but want a different one than proposed, please say what title you think is best and if many people want a different title we'll ping the involved editors to decide out of the main options presented. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 17, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating rumor – Per WP:NDESC and WP:RS. Reliable secondary sources predominantly describe this topic as a "claim", "rumor", or "conspiracy theory" rather than a hoax, and describe it as baseless or unsubstantiated rather than false. (As I write this, the only major WP:RSPSS I've found describing it as a "hoax" is New York.) Although the definitions of "hoax" and "rumor" overlap to some degree, the word "hoax" insinuates a deliberate and malicious trick, and the supposed event has not been and potentially may never be definitively proven as such. Per my older edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, one definition of "rumor" is "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth", which I think summarizes the topic better than "claim" or "conspiracy theory". Carguychris (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:36, 17 September 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. Also not all of the victims were killed through shooting, so a title with that would be slightly misleading. 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Macedonia (ancient kingdom) → Kingdom of Macedonia – Per WP:NCDAB, there's every reason for this page to be at the naturally disambiguated title of "Kingdom of Macedonia" – a title for which this page is the unambiguous primary topic (it redirects here) – and very little reason for it to have a parenthetically disambiguated title given that the naturally disamiguated title exists. There was a previous RM on this, but it appears to have overlooked both the preference towards natural disamiguatiom at WP:NCDAB and modern usage patterns, with the Wikinav chart of the undisambiguated base term showing the vast gulf between traffic to North Macedonia versus any other "Macedonia". It is the same in page views. The proposed term is also abundant in scholarship. Given all of this context, and the reality that the current title is in any case tantamount to "Macedonia (kingdom of)", we may as well just flip the title and remove the brackets. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 04:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 16, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Theros Block (Magic: The Gathering) → Theros Block – There is no other "Theros Block" article or topic for which the disambiguation (Magic: The Gathering) is needed as an appendage to the article name. Also, "Theros Block (Magic: The Gathering)" with the parenthetical is not the official name for the content if that is what we wanted to represent, nor is the parenthetical the way that the content is most commonly described when reliable sources or even street usage is discussing the subject. 67.220.13.43 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 04:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 15, 2024

  • (Discuss) – The dress → The Dress (meme) – The idea that this article was moved to the current place per WP:DIFFCAPS is flummoxing to me, since media call it both "The dress" and "The Dress" (even numerous sources used in this article), and there is no clear distinction that would allow for it to be a primary topic. The dress should simply be redirected to The Dress. As the article says, "The image became a worldwide Internet meme across social media", so I think (meme) is a valid disambiguation given that the entire phenomenon is centered around the optical illusion created by the image itself. However, I can also support (viral phenomenon) or (Internet phenomenon). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fredi Beleri → Fredis Beleris – "Fredis Beleris" is the name that Beleris chose to use for himself as proved by the official website of the EU parliament. "Fredi Beleri" is common only in Albania because Albanian authorities systematically removed, and still remove, the "S" from all names of the members of the ethnic Greek Minority, without giving the option to people to choose. Please note that I am not talking about the official name which includes the name "Dionysios". My point is that Fredis Beleris is a person who should be called with the name he chose and not with an incorrect name that is enforced in Albanian documents although Beleris has already made effort to write his name in a different way in the Greek documents. Beleris is neither a town nor a mountain so that wikipedia calls him with the name other people chose for him. Beleris is a human and became popular because he aims at protecting the violation of human rights of the ethnic Greek Minority in Albania, and "being called" with his correct name is one of them. In Beleris' case, the official name in Greece and EU matches the one he uses for himself, so there is no doubt about official versus common. The only doubt is about using a name enforced by Albanian authorities 50 years ago or accepting the name he likes for himslef. Open Free Eye (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pornography laws by region → Restrictions on pornography – Someone may have a better idea for a rename, so I'm seeking input. The current formulation — "laws" – is not sufficiently precise (WP:PRECISION), limiting the scope of addressing, in addition to "laws" in the sense of de jure aspects, also the enforcement situation by governments. For instance, South Korea is listed in the table as a country where production and distribution are prohibited, but appears nonetheless green in the accompanying map; China does not formally criminalise possession, yet there was a controversial 2002 incident of police breaking into a couple's home whilst they watched pornography, fining and jailing them (article in Chinese); in Egypt, there have been some statements by courts and prosecutors following the growth of Islamist politics in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 revolution, yet internet pornography is not blocked, unlike in some other Arab countries. Clearly, the article has been — and should be better — addressing both the de jure and quasi-legal situations. The present title yields undesired ambiguity. Similar Wikipedia titles include Restrictions on TikTok in the United States and Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States. It would make little sense to prefer e.g. "Legality of TikTok"/"Laws on TikTok in the United States" over its present title. Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:57, 15 September 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.
  • (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) – Tropical Storm Kompasu (2021) → Tropical Storm Kompasu – This is the worst incarnation of "Kompasu" out of the four times the name had been used, with 15 more deaths than its 2010 usage. The 2004 and 2016 tropical storms were also insignificant, for that matter; clicking on these links will redirect you to the years' Pacific typhoon season pages. I'd say this page shouldn't have the year in it; when Kompasu formed 3 years ago, it was very large and caused extensive flooding across PH, too. This incarnation was clearly more notable. Bugnawfang (talk) 11:32, 15 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)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Eric XI of Sweden → Erik Eriksson (king) – The WP:COMMONNAME for this king is "Erik Eriksson". * Ngram shows that Erik Eriksson has been more common in the literature since 1910 or so. However, "Erik Eriksson" is also a common name for other people, so the full curve for "Erik Eriksson" cannot be attributed to the king. The decline in the use of "Eric XI" is more clear. * Reliable sources usually use the name Erik Eriksson. See e.g. GBooks search for Erik+1222+1250. Typical example is the Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Britannica does not have a dedicated page for him, but the "Learn more page" is titled Erik Eriksson. *There are a lot of other Erik Erikssons (dab page), and the king is not the primary topic. For disambiguation, I suggest the parenthetical disambiguation, which would be a concise choice. I don't believe our hands are tied very strongly by WP:NCROY here since its applicability to medieval Sweden is somewhat dubious. These patronymic names are not of the "common stock", and Sweden was not a hereditary monarchy at the time. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 11:19, 14 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) – Ryan Whitney → Ryan Whitney (ice hockey) – Firstly, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between Ryan Whitney and Ryan Whitney (actress) (see similar page view numbers, suggesting equal readership). Ryan Whitney used to be called Ryan Newman, which is where all the problems start. However, after three years, two failed RMs, and a unilateral move by a user, we're passed the WP:TOOSOON stage. Let's say Ryan Whitney (actress)'s WP:COMMONNAME is actually Ryan Whitney (more on that later), and we manage to agree that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC, then, we need to move the pages accordingly and create a proper disambiguation page, instead of what is now at Ryan Whitney (disambiguation).
    Next, for the case of Ryan Newman (racing driver), the page needs to be moved to Ryan Newman, since he would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ryan Newman". We could leave a hatnote at the top so that readers looking for the former Ryan Newman, now Ryan Whitney, could find her. I don't think a Ryan Newman (disambiguation) page is necessary, but let me know. Ryan Dean Newman can stay as is, and we can leave a hatnote if need be.
    Alternate proposal: if you disagree with Ryan Whitney's WP:COMMONNAME being Ryan Whitney, I suggest moving Ryan Whitney (actress) to Ryan Whitney Newman, which is used in a fair chunk of sources and on places like her Instagram page. Ryan Newman (racing driver) is still moved to Ryan Newman, hatnotes are still left at the top, but that way we can leave Ryan Whitney (the ice hockey player) where he is, and just leave a hatnote at the top. Ryan Whitney (disambiguation) can be outright deleted. Ryan Dean Newman, no change but hatnotes where needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 7 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]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning.
    Clickstreams from the last three months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream: :clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 28  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 52 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 32  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 56 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 17  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 16  :* Sloboda Boyar link 13  :* total: 46 to 3 identified destinations Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=310968382"