Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMCD bot (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 14 May 2019 (Updating requested pagemoves list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page 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. 18 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

May 14, 2019

  • (Discuss)Regina CoeliRegina Caeli – This is the spelling that (apart from being correct Latin) is used in all recent official liturgical texts of the Catholic Church, as seen, for instance, in the image reproduced in the article. Past objections to this correction, based on out-of-date publications, are given above. The article by Hugh Henry in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia was cited for "Coeli", but the far more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia has "Caeli", and even the old Catholic Encyclopedia also had an article by the better known scholar Herbert Thurston using the "ae" spelling. The Raccolta (first published in 1807) was also cited above in support of "Coeli", but the edition cited was of an unspecified pre-1923 date. Wikisource only gives nineteenth-century editions of the Raccolta, the last edition of which (and we don't know which spelling it used) was in 1950. The Raccolta has since been replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which has "Regina caeli". The entire text of the fourth edition of this Enchiridion is on the Internet. The spelling "caeli" is not a recent fad: it is found in 15th-century Trent manuscripts. There is no doubt that "caelum" is the correct Latin word: see PHI Latin texts, where searching for "coelum" produces no results. The objection raised above that in medieval times (when the anthem was composed) "coelum" was the (only) spelling is quite unsubstantiated. Is it instead possible that the "coelum" spelling arose instead in post-medieval times, when Greek became better known in the West and the Latin word for "sky"/"heaven" was associated with the Greek word κοῖλος ("hollow")? "Regina caeli" is also the spelling used in today's scholarly works such as the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the American Institute of Musicology Bealtainemí (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Qara KhitaiWestern Liao – Considering the official name of this regime was "Great Liao", I believe it is more accurate to refer to it as "Western Liao". The term "Qara Khitai" was not used by the rulers to refer to their regime, but is instead a term of foreign origins. Furthermore, since the rulers and the regime itself were Sinicized, accepted Chinese traditions, adopted Chinese titles and claimed continuity from the previous Liao dynasty, among other things, using the term "Western Liao" to refer to this regime (as is the case for Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese historians) is more accurate. This is not Sinocentrism, considering the official name of the regime was "Great Liao" and was located to the west of the original Liao dynasty which also used the official name "Great Liao". The name "Western Liao" can therefore better reflect the historical connection between the two regimes as well as their geographical location in relation to each other, as opposed to "Qara Khitai" which neither reflect the official name of the regime nor was it used by the rulers themselves. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 13, 2019

  • (Discuss)The Automobile Association → ? – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "The Automobile Association" is both inaccurate and not commonly used to refer to the company. The company is officially named AA plc and trades as The AA. Keeping it named this is akin to RAC Limited being "Royal Automobile Club" or Sainsbury's being "J Sainsbury" (though the latter is not completely inaccurate, and outdated names are sometimes still used as titles such as Macintosh, a brand named "Mac" since 1998). However, there isn't one easy name that this article could be moved to. *AA plc is an option, as it is a natural disambiguator and official name akin to Apple Inc. *The AA would be making a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it currently redirects to AA, and I'm not sure what WP:THE has to say about the use of this grammatical article. *AA (company) or The AA (company), simple parenthetical disambiguation is an option. Or there is, of course, the current name that is inaccurate, but natural disambiguation. Lazz_R 18:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jason Williams (basketball, born 1975)Jason Williams – Yes I know that the name “Jason Williams” has many entries, but it seems that the basketball player born in 1975 is the primary topic. His article averages 1,349 views per day. The next most is the ice hockey player with only 55 views per day. Another person with the name averages 23, another with 17, and the rest are 5 or less. If you are opposed to renaming “Jason Williams (basketball, born 1975)” to “Jason Williams”, please voice your opinion on the possibility of alternatively renaming “Jason Williams (basketball, born 1975)” to “Jason Williams (basketball)”. The basketball player born in 1975 seems to have even more of a stronghold as the primary topic among basketball players with the same name. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 12, 2019

  • (Discuss)Kamarupi Prakrit → ?What should be the primary name of this article? All other plausible names can be redirects. The following names have been proposed: :A. Kamarupi Prakrit. :B. Proto-Kamarupa language. :C. Old Kamrupi language. :D. Old Kamarupi dialect :E. Kamrupi language. :F. Kamrupi Apabhramsa. Please specify your first choice, and rank other choices, in the Survey section. Threaded discussion may be in the Threaded Discussion section. Due to the large number of possible names, we may request a snowball closure to exclude some of the choices and restart the RFC for the remaining choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. bd2412 T 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jiangnan AutomobileHunan Jiangnan Automobile – Either Hunan Jiangnan or Hunan Jiangnan Automobile are the most WP:COMMONAMEs in English-language reliable sources (as the the OICA or books). The sources that tend to use more just the "Jiangnan (or JiangNan) Automobile" name are less reliable ones (as China Auto Web or Le Blog Auto) that have little editorial oversight and tend to simply translate from Chinese sources. But even that kind of sources sitting on the grey area aren't consitent on that. A quick Google search proves that there's at least two other "Jiangnan Automobile" companies. An editor said that the Jiangnan Automobile covered in this article (Hunan Jiangnan) is the primary topic for Jiangnan Automobile, and that may ba valid point.If you search 江南汽车 most of the results you would get are related to Hunan Jiangnan and not to the other two Jiangnan companies involved in the automotive industry (Hubei Jiangnan and Zhangjiagang Jiangnan). However, most of the coverage you would get is related to Hunan Jiangnan products. If you don't count that and just count articles related to the companies themselves, the coverage of high-quality sources is very low for the three of them. Urbanoc (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 11, 2019

  • (Discuss)Native American civil rightsNative American rights – Article title "Native American civil rights" violates WP:COMMONNAME for the following reasons:  ::Between 1965–2008  :*Google Ngram - The term "Native American rights" is the most dominant term among the terms "Native American rights", "American Indian rights", "Native American civil rights", and "American Indian civil rights".  ::Between 2009–2019  :*Google Scholar - "Native American rights": 2,340 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*Google Scholar - "American Indian rights": 476 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*Google Scholar - "Native American civil rights": 180 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*Google Scholar - "American Indian civil rights": 135 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*JSTOR - "Native American rights": 319 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*JSTOR - "American Indian rights": 72 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*JSTOR - "Native American civil rights": 16 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*JSTOR - "American Indian civil rights": 15 hits (custom date range from 2009 to 2019)  :*Google Books - "Native American rights": 15 books (custom date range from 1/1/2009 to 5/3/2019)  :*Google Books - "American Indian rights": 3 books (custom date range from 1/1/2009 to 5/3/2019)  :*Google Books - "Native American civil rights": 5 books (custom date range from 1/1/2009 to 5/3/2019)  :*Google Books - "American Indian civil rights": 4 books (custom date range from 1/1/2009 to 5/3/2019)
     :Mitchumch (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Blue Origin Blue MoonBlue Moon (spacecraft) – Hi! I thought it would be nice to have a discussion on the naming of this article. Recently (May 2019) Blue Origin has unveiled the "Blue Moon". Here's a link to Blue Origin's Page on the lander. Although I can change the name using the Move feautre (WP:Be Bold). I thought it might be ok to have a discussion on the name change. Here are the Wikipedia policies that would support this name change: "Consistency", "Conciseness", and "Precision"
    *Consistency - All of the articles related to Blue Origin are not titled "Blue Origin //so and so//" instead they seem to be called by their WP:Offical Names (such as New Glenn and New Shepard). They do not have the company name in their titles. Other spacecraft like Beresheet 2 also use their official names. Other landers also do not have company names in their tiles. In these cases given all of the "official names" seem to be the "common names". For the Blue Moon spacecraft it might be too early to tell if "Blue Moon" will be a common name or not but still that's the official name. (but thus far "Blue Origin Blue Moon" does not seem that common [12], [13], ) *Precision - As you may have noticed added "(spacecraft)" would deviate from consistently, but is needed to distinguishes it from other uses of "Blue moon" (see disambiguation). It could be possible that saying "Blue Moon" (with the M in caps) could distinguish though. In most cases specifying in "()" seems to be the norm for most Wikipedia pages. (I do give credit that adding "Blue Origin" in the title does make the name precise though) *Conciseness - Adding "spacecraft" is enough, it does not need the manufacturer name, adding it makes the title seem to long (especially because in this case the company name is two words unlike SpaceX Dragon) *Just an opinion - Having 'Blue' twice in the title just seems odd, I might have not suggested a name change if the title did not have 'Blue' twice in the title. Although these are not "rules" but are good points (how I applied them may not be good). Other name coulds be "Blue Moon" or "Blue Moon (lunar lander)" or "Blue Moon lunar lander" or "Blue Moon (lander)" or "Blue Moon lander". Thanks! OkayKenji (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 10, 2019

  • (Discuss)Fran Đivo GundulićFrano Điva Gundulić – The current name of the page is a mistranslation of the person's name because "Fran" is not a Ragusan name but a Northern Croatian variant (the Ragusan form is Frano, which was his grandfather's name), also Đivo was not his middle name but the name of his father (Ragusans sometimes appended their father's name to differentiate between multiple persons with the same first and last name), and thus it is properly rendered in Ragusan in the genitive case, Điva (not Đivo) - thus, Frano Điva, meaning Frano Đivo's (son). 83.179.213.143 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 9, 2019

  • (Discuss)Editorial cartoonPolitical cartoon – This term already redirects. The article was created back in 2003 exclusively about cartoons in regular newspapers and magazines. But in the "golden age" (or the first of several) of cartoons they were never contained in publications, but sold individually, so there was no "editor" or "editorial" involved. Today, with the internet, they are again often stand-alone works not connected with a publication. Also, at least in the UK, "editorial cartoon" is just not the WP:COMMONNAME. So the less specific term is much better. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Croydon Aerodrome robberyCroydon Aerodrome theft – This was not a robbery (in a legal or otherwise sense) because no force was used against any person; it is properly characterized as a theft or, more specifically, burglary. None of the linked sources (except one) refers to it as a "robbery," so it's not a situation where the event is commonly known, even if incorrectly, as a "robbery." If "theft" is inelegant, I am open to other alternatives. (One of the articles refers to it as a "heist," which is not a legal term, of course, but "robbery" has a specific meaning that this event simply doesn't fit.) I considered just moving the article myself, but I thought a discussion may be helpful in case (contrary to my understanding) the event itself is commonly known as the "Croydon Aerodrome robbery" and to determine whether "theft" is the best word to refer to it. Nlu (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 8, 2019

  • (Discuss)ChairmanChairperson – Now that the move review for #Requested move 22 March 2019 has been closed, it's appropriate to make this more specific proposal (notwithstanding the identical interim #Requested move 17 April 2019 which was premature since the review was still ongoing and was speedily closed accordingly). Chairperson is clearly gender-neutral and, though it's difficult to ascertain for sure, it appears to be more common in recent usage than chairman. Also, the second poll in the 22 March RM did indicate that most participants favored Chairperson over Chairman. Let's verify and be done with this one way or another. В²C 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 7, 2019

References