Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFM)

Click here to purge this page

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.

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

I don't understand. The merge discussion was about merging into 3D drug printing, not the other way around. It also seems the merge and redirection has been completed already. Please clarify if there is still something to be done. Polyamorph (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

The bulk of the content relates to the former constituency. I wanted to preserve the edit history rather than cut and paste as you've suggested.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do the two have significantly different borders? If not, I think it's standard practice to leave them as one page.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the two constituencies are significantly different. This map shows the arrondissement (old constituency) within the province (new constituency). The area of the constituency increased from 797 km2 to 3,857 km2. The electorate increased from 400,000 to 725,000.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 20 June 2024" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

The |1= unnamed parameter is not used. The |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 20 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 20 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 20 June 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Any additional comments:

This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 20 June 2024

– why Example (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 20 June 2024

– why Example (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
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. 66 discussions have been relisted.

June 20, 2024

  • (Discuss)KiKAKika (television channel) – Unnecessary stylisation, worthy of a mention in the article but not fit for the title. No consistently used spelling method is in place: Kika and KiKa are both common variations and are used by media outlets ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). The official stylistic choice has also been subject to change over the years, i.e. when KI.KA turned into the current KiKA. Per MOS:TMRULES, the best and least conflicting way to approach this would be using sentence case. Agwjkl (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2024 Pune car crash2024 Pune Porsche car crash – The word "Porsche" is a big identifier of this case - the brand of the car crashed is a big assosciation and that is how the case is often talked about in the media. People know it as the "Pune Porsche" case rather than the "2024 Pune car crash". Hence, for this article and this case, I believe the word Porsche should be added. The article thumbnail contains all references, more can be researched. To help my case, the article's thumbnail image is already the Porsche car model. Pharaoh496 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 19, 2024

  • (Discuss)Jinder MahalRaj Dhesi – Yuvraj is currently using his ring name Raj Dhesi, since he left WWE and returned to independent circuit in 2024. Anonymy365248 (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge CupAVC Women's Challenge Cup – This move request requires a technical move, as the proposed new title already exists as a redirect page. The reason for the move is per WP:UCRN, as the article's cited sources refer to the event tournament either as the AVC Women's Challenge Cup or the AVC Challenge Cup for Women, never as the Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge Cup. And per WP:CONCISE, inserting the word "Volleyball" is unnecessary as it produces a redundancy. Bagoto (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 18, 2024

  • (Discuss)JutishJutlandic – I'm requesting a move to the new article, along with its associated talk page, because while the terms "Jutish" and "Jutlandic" can be synonyms and refer to either anything related to the ancient Germanic tribe called the 'Jutes', anything related to the Jutland peninsula in Denmark, or the 'Jutlandic dialect' spoken in Denmark, the terms "Jute", "Jutish" and "Jutic" normally refer to anything related to the ancient Germanic tribe called the 'Jutes' (according to the entries on Wiktionary, Jute, Jutish and Jutic), while the terms "Jutlandic" and "Jutlandish" normally refer to anything related to the Jutland peninsula in Denmark, or the 'Jutlandic dialect' spoken in Denmark (according to the entries on Wiktionary, Jutlandic and Jutlandish), while the term "Jutlander" normally refers to anyone from the Jutland peninsula in Denmark (according to the entry on Wiktionary). But this definitely warrants further discussion. It seems we have five options here: # Retain the status quo, with the disambiguation page as the primary topic, # Move Jutlandic dialect to Jutlandic and retarget Jutish to Jutes, # Retarget Jutlandic to Jutish, # Move Jutish to Jutlandic and then do either of the following:  :: a. retarget Jutish to Jutlandic,  :: b. retarget Jutish to Jutes My personal preference is (4b), to move Jutish to Jutlandic and then retarget Jutish to Jutes, so I've styled the RM that way. But editors are also free to suggest whichever option they want in this RM. PK2 (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Digital Light ProcessingDigital light processing – Per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:EXPABBR. This is not a proper name, it's an improper over-capitalization of something generic just because capital letters are in the acronym, which is against the guidelines. In fact, this is virtually the same example as the first one that appears at MOS:EXPABBR. DLP is in the same category as LCD, LED, DSP, etc. – generic technologies. It is not like HTML, NTSC, CUDA, and IBM which are (both in abbreviated and full form) proper names, being trademarked standards, product lines, or company names; nor another sort of proper-name acronym/initialism like ANZAC, ACLU, NASA, or USSR. NB: The lower-case version already redirects here, so there is no disambiguation issue to solve. 2001:5A8:4260:3100:C444:87AF:E299:2F41 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 17, 2024

  • (Discuss)Death of Jeffrey NorthrupR. v. Zameer – The event of Northrup's death is fundamentally the core issue surrounding the trial of Crown v. Zameer, which realistically should be the primary topic on this matter. This topic should fundamentally be about that with the inclusion of Northrup's death and additional details in their totality, not a cursory discussion around just the LEO's death. That presents an undesirable bias centered on the LEO and not on any other substantial issues produced by and/or resultant of the death/trial (notably criticism of the Crown's arguments and theories by the judicial system, possible evidence of collusion admist Crown witnesses, jury instructions, etc). The fact that the trial has concluded, there exists extensive reporting through both legal filings and multiple media sources to substantiate a much more thorough representation of the event described and its greater consequences (as evidenced by judicial and jury outcomes and public discussion). Himay81 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 16, 2024

  • (Discuss)October 2012 Beirut bombingAssassination of Wissam al-Hassan – per WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; nearly every article I've seen about this bombing either explicitly mentions Wissam al-Hassan outright, or say that it killed a high-level Lebanese official as a reference to him (with some sources in this very article calling it an assassination). It's pretty clear that this fact is by far the most significant aspect of the bombing, and changing the title to something that mentions al-Hassan would be an easy way to make this article distinguishable from the many other Beirut bombings. XTheBedrockX (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Frisco Station → ? – Opening as a procedural matter as article has been moved many times, so we should figure out a stable article title. More details: I granted OrdinaryScarlett's technical move request (permalink) to revert undiscussed moves from the last longstanding title. Usually I would have declined as the last move was in 2023, but this was to correct a misspelling in the article title. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fraser IslandK'gari – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. While this is a contentious topic and it has been just under a year since the most recent move request, I believe it is time to finally make this change. Since the island was officially renamed to K'gari in June 2023 the new name has been overwhelmingly used in sources that talk about the island. I have manually assessed each result in a google news search for both names since the change took place (there have been a lot of dingo attacks...). Of the 353 results, 317 primarily use the name K'gari, and a further 30 either use a dual name or use K'gari equally with Fraser Island. Only 6 sources used Fraser Island on its own, indicating a clear preference for the new name in news sources posted after the name has been changed. Crucially, the preference for the new name is strong across all sources, and in international examples - it's not just one or two outlets frequently posting and skewing the results. Many of the articles do mention that Fraser Island is the former name, but this is typically a passing reference in an article that otherwise demonstrates a preference for K'gari. I also manually assessed google scholar results for this year, and after filtering out a lot of false positives, duplicates, and sources which only had the names used as part of the references (mostly Google getting caught out by authors named K. Gari) I was left with 42 articles. Interestingly, an equal number used K'gari as used Fraser Island (15 each), with 7 either using a dual name or using the names an equal amount. However, the majority of articles were passing references which used the island as a navigational point (eg. "the coast north of K'gari") or as one of several locations (eg. "Specimens were found in the Blue Mountains, the Whitsundays, and Fraser Island"). Articles which focused primarily on the island itself tended to use K'gari, with the total count of references for each name across the academic sources coming in with K'gari at 230 vs. Fraser Island at 69 - again, indicating a stronger usage of the new name. WP:NAMECHANGES states that If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The above unambiguously demonstrates that sources written after the change routinely use the new name, and make a strong case that the WP:COMMONNAME of the island is now K'gari - which we should reflect. The most recent move closure saw that usage had shifted and there were grounds to move as of July 2023, but that scholar sources still used Fraser Island predominantly. This has now shifted, with usage even stronger in favour of K'gari. I would also note (as I have seen it come up in previous moves) that the sources used in this are reliable, English sources - WP:USEENGLISH states that we should use the name used in English sources, not that the name needs to be English in origin. As such, the proposed title is still compliant with that. Turnagra (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonization schemesSinhalese colonization – The current article title is too broad compared to the content, which focuses solely on contested colonization schemes in the north and east where Sinhalese were settled. There are many "Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonization schemes" throughout Sri Lanka, including in the wet-zone, and there schemes where Tamils were the majority of colonists. SinhalaLion (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ChairpersonChairman – "Chairperson" has almost negligible usage compared to "Chairman" [24]. This page should be titled "Chairman" which is the indisputable common name of this article unless another term surpasses it in future. Besides, per WP:NATURALNESS, we should be using the term that readers are most likely to search for, which per Google trends [25] is also chairman, with "chairperson" again having almost negligible searches in comparison. Lastly, the term "chairman" is gender-neutral which you can see in the Oxford Dictionary definition. PadFoot2008 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 15, 2024

  • (Discuss)Class 360Class 360 (disambiguation) – I feel as though that the Class 360 in the UK is the most popular and primary topic hence the rename. One other editor wanted to bring back the class 360 as a disambig page. I think it should go thru a proper RM to change the name again because of the disagreement between editors. JuniperChill (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:44, 15 June 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)[reply]

June 14, 2024

  • (Discuss)Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on IsraelSexual 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.


  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)BruléSicangu – Move to more commonly used name in English. Brulé is a very outdated French term. The Rosebud Sioux Lake overwhelmingly uses the term Sicangu when describing themselves. Alternatives exist with different orthography, but this is an English-language encyclopedia, so the most common term with no diacriticals is best, clearest, and not offensive or obsolete. Yuchitown (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)90482 OrcusOrcus (dwarf planet) – To maintain consistency, per WP:TITLECON. The recent discussion at Talk:Sedna (dwarf planet) has established that Sedna, Gonggong and Quaoar are considered dwarf planets by the established scientific consensus, and those articles were moved accordingly. There is no qualitative difference between the situation for those objects and Orcus. Orcus was mentioned in the discussion at Sedna, but was purposefully left out (for reasons explained below) so it can be discussed here separately. Now is the time to do that. Wikipedia does not follow the IAU's position when it comes to determining which objects are considered dwarf planets in the scientific literature. Rather, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Dwarf planets now asks for objects to be included in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets before they are titled as such. The purpose of this, as explained here, is to ensure that a thorough discussion has taken place whether there is sufficient scientific consensus, thus ensuring a stable basis for what objects we consider to be dwarf planets. This is currently the case for the eight objects on the featured topic. It also appears that Orcus is the only other object that may currently qualify to be added to that list. The Orcus article itself of course treats Orcus as a dwarf planet, and has done so for quite some time. The reason why Orcus was left out of the recent move request is that its status was unclear: Orcus had been added to that featured topic in early 2024,[34] but this was challenged in May.[35] As a good article, Orcus is technically eligible to be on that list. Its removal sparked the discussion at Talk:90482 Orcus#Dwarf planet or not, which was followed up by Talk:90482 Orcus#The Consensus Is That Orcus Is Still A Dwarf Planet. The arguments for and against a possible move have been outlined, and I point there for further details, but the arguments in favour of considering Orcus a dwarf planet are basically the same as in the move request for Sedna, Gonggong and Quaoar. While there were some opposing views (as there were in the successful move request for the other three objects), the arguments against were basically the same, too. To maintain consistency, I believe that Orcus should therefore be included in the featured topic, and the article should be titled accordingly. Renerpho (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)MKS CracoviaCracovia (football) – On 13 June 2024, Cracovia announced they've reverted back to their historic name 'KS Cracovia SA', or in full, 'Klub Sportowy Cracovia Spółka Akcyjna'. [36] The 'M' in 'MKS' stood for Miejski (Municipal), which is no longer the case after the city of Kraków have sold all their shares in the club. [37][38]. The current name for this page, 'MKS Cracovia', is therefore outdated and only refers to the owner group of the club, MKS Cracovia SSA. (no announcements on whether it will be changed anytime soon). To avoid issues in case they were to ever rename or change their legal entity again, rather than change their name back to 'KS Cracovia (football), I'd like to suggest dropping the 'MKS/KS' from their name altogether. It is not currently clear whether the name change also affects their ice hockey which is run by the same group, but they have started using the new updated logo, which was released along with the name change announcement. [39] The football department is Cracovia's most recognizable in Polish sports, therefore perhaps the page could also be moved to just 'Cracovia', in line with pages such as FC Barcelona and FC Bayern Munich, who also run other notable departments, whose pages contain the sports name in brackets to differentiate them from the 'main' section. KibolLP (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Justine (de Sade novel)Justine (Sade novel) – In the French naming custom, the prefix "de" is not considered part of last name and is not capitalized. It is not used when the first name or the title is not used, i.e., it is correct to say "Guy de Maupassant" or "Monsieur de Maupassant," but it is incorrect to say "De Maupassant" by itself. This is not a controversial take, it's linguistic fact found in all articles regarding the topic of French naming conventions. Now, the second question to be settled is whether or not "Sade" is the common English usage as well, like Maupassant is. There are cases like De Gaulle where the incorrect rendering is so prevalent in the English-speaking world that it'd be incorrect to redirect a page to refer to him as "Gaulle." However, it can be argued that this is not the case with Sade. While "De Sade" is also common and may even be found in some (generally older) credible sources (the most important of which is Britannica), almost all prominent works regarding him today refer to the correct last name, Sade. This is also a non-controversial take in my opinion, as it is evident in the writer's own article and the works it mentions or lists as sources (such as the famous "Must we burn Sade?" by Simone de Beauvoir or "Sade, Fourier, Loyola" by the famous Roland Barthes. Even further research (outside the body of Wikipedia itself) would show that most prominent, modern, credible works in English refer to him by the universally correct variant and that it's not obscure by any means. Painfully, it seems that this article was originally titled correctly and it was moved to the current title in 2016, whose "support" which I'm reading now in the talk page includes some very questionable statements (such as "...it is quite rare in sources in that form and is mostly only found in obsolete ones...") and even some blatantly incorrect and clearly refutable ones (such as "...the name used as a human name is de Sade"). Without any intention of speaking ad hominem, it seems highly likely that the people in charge of the 2016 move were neither familiar with French nor with works referring to Sade. P. T. Tabayi (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 13, 2024

  • (Discuss)FictosexualityFictophilia – The term "fictosexual" appears to be a fringe term that is not used outside of specific groups. Most LGBT support/advocacy organizations I have found do not recognize "fictosexuality" as an LGBT identity. I think this page should be more focused on the psychological aspects of the phenomenon, as with Otherkin and Multiplicity (subculture). Game2Winter (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss)ChinilpaKorean collaborators with Imperial Japan – See my talk post above this; this article is currently titled using a term considered derogitory, and isn't exclusively a discussion about the word itself per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It actually significantly talks about the people alleged to be collaborators. That'd be like talking about a people group under an article titled with a slur for them; that's clearly not neutral, it feels like it's validating the slur. Note: I'm not expressing sympathy for nor opposition to collaborators here, I am purely trying to apply WP:NDESC. My proposed new title matches Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan; I just chose to use it for consistency and because it's an adequate title, open to suggestions for other titles. Side note, but the term itself is possibly independently notable and could eventually get its own article, but current article lengths suggest to me that it should all be in one. (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of films considered the bestList of films voted the best – The current title has long been recognized as being far from ideal. The inclusion criteria are, and have for a long time been, that the movie in question must have been voted the best in a notable poll. Indeed, the WP:LEAD states that This is a list of films considered the best in national and international surveys of critics and the public. The proposed new title better reflects the actual contents of the list, and may also be helpful in preventing the addition of entries that do not meet the inclusion criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Oh Yong-GeunYong-Geun Oh – According to WP:NCKO, unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise, family name should be written first. Currently his family name is written first. I cannot confirm without a doubt what the subject's preference is, however: 1. The subject's personal webpage refers to him as Yong-Geun Oh, 2. The subject's IAS webpage refers to him as Yong-Geun Oh, 3. The subject's nLab profile refers to him as Yong-Geun Oh, 4. English language books authored by the subject that I have seen all universally refer to him as Yong-Geun Oh, 5. English online documents in English authored by the subject that I have seen all universally refer to him as Yong-Geun Oh (for example [40]). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)SlobodaSloboda (settlement) – This word means "freedom" in the original Slavic languages, and while there is a significant usage in Russian and Ukrainian history as well as some usage in modern-day Russian administrative divisions, described at this presumed primary topic, its usage and long-term significance does not actually overshadow the ambiguity over the other uses of the word for the average English reader. In preparation for this move, I went through the list of ~200 incoming links to preemptively disambiguate them. The usage is typically clerical, to explain the strange term, which is most commonly placed in italics. This indicates that the fact that the explanation was directly at "sloboda" was a very easy way to get the etymological explanation. However, that's a possible description of editor behavior, which is not necessarily the reader behavior (WP:RF). It should also be noted that Russian toponymy lists are quite weird from the perspective of a navigation purpose for set indices, with an apparent habit of linking these kinds of terms contrary to what MOS:DABONE would advise. It's not that I'm opposed to having a link somewhere in such a set index to explain the term, but the volume of this skews the statistics. After going through the list, I was left with 19 links (~10%) where I couldn't identify a clear connection to this particular subject. Mostly they seemed to be generic references to the Slavic word for "freedom". This also extended to Russian topics. Some were references to specific places named Sloboda, not the concept. I had also disambiguated numerous others by linking Foobar Svoboda instead of keeping a largely useless partial link (sadly I didn't keep a count of these to be able to note the percentage). A search in Google Books for me does not identify this meaning to be primary - I get more references to people named this way. Likewise for Google Scholar. I don't have reason to believe that this would differ for the average English reader. WikiNav for Sloboda and meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive indicate that the hatnote is consistently one of the most commonly clicked links on the page - even in months where we see a larger readership, it's still among the most commonly clicked links (for example in March '24, with 162 clickstreams to 9 identified destinations, the hatnote was #3 with 17). This is typically indicative of a navigation issue. Another editor reverted the initial preparatory move, thinking this broke links (it did not) and saying this changes a 'long established' status quo - I don't see an actual rationale there. Just because this grew organically as is - doesn't mean it's not subject to evaluation and adjustment. In addition, similar terms like svoboda and swoboda are not short-circuiting here and are indeed disambiguated, so this change would seem to make things more consistent. Joy (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Objection (United States law)Objection (law) – Was going to suggest deleting Objection (law) because the titles were not entirely interchangeable and objections are used in other court systems, but I wanted to first see if this article could be rewritten from a more global POV. Even if the rewrite is not immediate, it would allow for the article's coverage to be more comprehensive. Awesome Aasim 02:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2024 Slatina protestsDeath of Flavius Magraon – This looks more notable, in any case. The article should be centered on the main event and not on the protests that were a consequence of it. The death of a person is also more relevant than seemingly small and unconsequential (beyond the local level) protests. This title format, consistent with other articles, also puts the scope onto the person who was a professional footballer which is something that can be written more about in the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)NonmetalNonmetal (chemistry) – There is currently a mess of "Nonmetal" pages, with this one, a stub Nonmetal (physics) for the conventional energy band approach, one Nonmetal (astrophysics) and there are other uses of the term such as in Metallurgy and also it is related to topics such as Ceramics, Semiconductors and many more. This page deals with the term when used for pure elements. That is fine and textbook chemistry (although the page meanders a bit), but that is not the sole use of the term, just one of many. Looking at the history this page was renamed from Nonmetal (chemistry) so it could be nominated for a FAR -- that is not a great rationale. I am proposing moving it back so it is an equal partner, not the king. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • (Discuss)Parachromis managuensisJaguar cichlid – So, the last time a name change for this article has been discussed was back in 2007 (see "article title" up above). This article used to be named "Managuense cichlid," but was later changed to the Latin name and current title, Parachromis managuensis, on the basis that it was the least ambiguous epithet for the species. Which is true. Latin names are almost always less ambiguous than vernacular names, but they're almost never as concise or recognizable - for the same reason we have articles named Great white shark and Largemouth bass rather than Carcharodon carcharias and Micropterus salmoides, I'm going to propose that this article be renamed to Jaguar cichlid. For the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness, I present the Google Search results for the names listed in the article's lede (in order from most hits to least): * "jaguar cichlid": ~93,700 results * "parachromis managuensis": ~40,900 results * "jaguar guapote": ~9,680 results * "managuense cichlid": ~8,720 results * "guapote tigre": ~8,640 results * "aztec cichlid": ~4,090 results * "managua cichlid": ~1,470 results * "spotted guapote": ~812 results "Jaguar cichlid" is more than twice as prevalent on the web as the Latin name. It's nearly a full order of magnitude more prevalent than the next most popular vernacular name, "jaguar guapote" - and if that's where we draw the line, then names like "managuense cichlid" and "guapote tigre" aren't even in the running. This is supported by Google Trends, which shows that on average, "jaguar cichlid" is searched for 47 times more than "parachromis managuensis" and "managuense cichlid" worldwide. We should name the article accordingly. Simple as. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)RallyingRally (motorsport) – "Rallying" remains vague, as it can apply in literally every other type of sport "rally" is a term as well as the stock market. It is not an adequate disambiguation. Britannica calls it "rally" [44] so that's what I went with here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Nuseirat refugee camp massacreKilling of civilians during Nuseirat raid and rescue – The word "massacre" is listed as a non-neutral term at WP:POVNAMING and should not be used unless it's a WP:COMMONNAME, which it isn't in this case. "Killing of civilians" is perfectly neutral (see WP:KILLINGS) and covers the idea of "massacre" but in a neutral way. Two anticipated objections: *While there is currently a discussion to merge this article, I don't see any consensus there. If consensus does develop to merge/delete this article, then an admin is perfectly capable of closing this RM and redirecting this article. But until then, this article must still follow WP:NPOV. *While Israeli and Palestinian officials dispute how many civilians were killed, the fact that at least some civilians (including children) were killed during the raid is a established fact that RS state in their own voice: **"At the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in the nearby town of Deir al-Balah, the dead and wounded arrived in waves — men, women and children." Associate Press **"Many Palestinians, including children, were killed and injured in the area where the operation took place, with images and footage showing a large numbers of casualties." BBC News **"Video in the aftermath of the raid showed charred bodies scattered across streets in Nuseirat, while Palestinians could be seen gathering the remains of those killed. Bloodied children could also be seen arriving at a local hospital". NBC News Finally, the move target should be "Killing of civilians during X", where X is the name decided for 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation article per WP:CONSISTENT. Currently there seems to be a lot of support for moving that article to "Nuseirat raid and rescue". VR (Please ping on reply) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mokai TramwayTaupo Totara Timber Company Railway – The proposed title makes this article easier to find. Many readers will have heard of the "TTT", the tourist town of Taupo, or Lake Taupo. Few people will be familiar with the sawmilling village of Mokai, which today has only a few houses and a marae. The name also distinguishes the main Putaruru to Mokai line from the bush tramways radiating from Mokai. Many of these tramways were accessible only to selected TTT Railway rolling stock. In contrast, all TTT locomotives including the Mallet and the four-wheeled locos were able to run through to Mokai, where the company had its main mechanical workshop. The proposed new title also distinguishes the TTT Railway from the Kinleith Branch, which covered only part of the route and was built on formation that was largely new. (The original TTT formation north of Tokoroa is still visible in some places). I have a large collection of source material on the railway and the company and I hope to add more info and true primary citations as time permits. I will also propose that a separate page be set up covering the TTT company itself Kbwc56 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Srebrenica massacreSrebrenica genocide – I suggest that we rename this article to "Srebrenica genocide" now that the UN has issued its resolution on the matter today, designating July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica Please also check the discussion above. Njamu (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ZürichZurichZurich appears to be the name most commonly used in English-language sources, including by the city itself[45], Zurich Airport[46], Swiss Railways[47], airline Swiss[48], and Zurich local transport newtork[49]. I agree that there are some English-language sources that spell it Zürich, but they are either those that consistently prefer localised spelling (Düsseldorf, Łódź, or Hồ Chí Minh City; BBC and Britannica often fall here), or those that follow Wikipedia. Yet, non-umlauted spelling, even if not universal, appears to be the English norm. — kashmīrī TALK 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2024 Nuseirat rescue operationNuseirat 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]
  • (Discuss)September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashesSeptember 2022 Azerbaijani attack on Armenia – I have not seen a single reliable source saying that Armenia attacked Azerbaijan. But multiple reliable sources say the opposite. Various sources describe the events as an “invasion”, “offensive”, “attack”, or “assault.” There is consensus that Azerbaijan was the one who initiated the hostilities. Some talk about “Azerbaijan’s Invasion of Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Offensive on Armenia”, “Azerbaijan’s Attack on Armenia”, but they all agree on one thing: Azerbaijan was the initiator of the clash, and it was Azerbaijan who attacked. Therefore, the title “Attack of Azerbaijan on Armenia” perfectly reflects the vast majority of reliable sources and is the least ambiguous. I will provide the overwhelming evidence below: * Human Rights Watch:  :The killings took place during fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that broke out in mid-September, when Azerbaijan made incursions into Armenia...” * Genocide Watch:  :“Azerbaijani military attacks on Armenian territory show Azerbaijani disregard for Armenian sovereignty.” * Freedom House:  :“Freedom House Condemns Azerbaijani Attacks on Armenia”  :“The Azerbaijani armed forces must immediately cease their deadly attacks on Armenian territory” * Axel Gehring, Ph.D., political scientist and expert in the field of foreign and security policy and researcher at the Institute for Critical Social Analysis of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Berlin:  :“On September 13, regular Azerbaijani troops launched a large-scale attack on Armenian territory. This attack took tensions between the countries to a new level.” * Laurence Broers is a specialist in conflicts in the Transcaucasus, founder of the scientific journal Caucasus Survey:  :"Azerbaijan's recent attack seeks to enforce terms in negotiations with Armenia" “ The recent large-scale cross-border attacks inside Armenia by Azerbaijan...” * Maximilian Hess, Research Fellow for Central Asia at the Foreign Policy Institute, in Foreign Policy magazine:  :“Azerbaijani forces who marched into Armenia continue to occupy part of its territory, in particular heights around the town of Jermuk.” * David L. Phillips, conflict analyst in The National Interest:  :“The United States criticized Azerbaijan's recent attacks on Armenia proper” * European Parliament Resolution:  :“Strongly condemns the latest military aggression by Azerbaijan on September 12, 2022 on the sovereign territory of Armenia”  :“calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, therefore, to immediately withdraw from all parts of the territory of Armenia “ * Wojciech Gorecki, senior researcher at the Department of Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia:  :“in September 2022 Azerbaijan attacked targets located on Armenian territory.” * The Guardian:  : “This week, with attention focused across the Black Sea in Ukraine, fighting on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia killed about 100 troops after Azerbaijan shelled a number of towns in Armenia, with both sides accusing each other of “provocations”.” * Der Spiegel:  : “Peace negotiations mediated by the European Union have been at an impasse since Baku also attacked territory in the Republic of Armenia in September 2022.” * TIME:  : “...democratic nation that was recently invaded by its authoritarian neighbor”  : “...but also Armenia, which has been suffering from Azerbaijan's invasion for almost three weeks now.” * BBC:  : “I don’t think anyone doubts that Azerbaijan started this operation on the territory of Armenia. Even Azerbaijani commentators admit this. Armenia is currently weak, has little interest in disrupting the status quo.” * Eurasianet  :"Azerbaijan launches large-scale attacks on Armenia"  :“Azerbaijan launched a large-scale attack on targets in Armenia, an unprecedented expansion of the long-running conflict into Armenian territory.” * Michael Rubin, senior researcher at AIP:  :“Last week, Azerbaijan attacked Armenia proper. (Last week Azerbaijan attacked Armenia directly)” * Paul Stronski is a senior fellow in the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Programs, specializing in Russia and the South Caucasus:  : “..the fact that Russia is preoccupied, certainly led to what looks like an Azerbaijani offensive at this time”  : “And what we even saw just in the last few days is actually attacks inside and shelling inside cities inside Armenia, not just along the border." * Kapil Komireddy, political columnist for The Telegraph:  : “But so little about Azerbaijan's attack, which goes beyond the disputed territory of Karabakh and targets Armenia proper.” *Seth Franzman, Middle East analyst for The Jerusalem Post , contributor to Defense News, The National Interest and Digest of Middle East Studies:  :“Attacks on Armenia represent dangerous escalation” *Carnegie Europe:  :“Nearly 300 soldiers died in a large-scale Azerbaijani incursion into the territory of Armenia on September 13-14.” Vanezi (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Genocide of Indigenous peoplesGenocide of indigenous peoples – "Indigenous" is only a proper name when adopted as conventional for a particular ethnic group, and when applied to the specific groups who have done so. As a general, global adjective it is not and cannot be a proper name (any more than the opposite, "colonial"), so should not be capitalized. See in particular the lead paragraph of MOS:CAPS: WP does not capitalize that which is not capitalized consistently across nearly all independent reliable sources, and "indigenous peoples" is not so capitalized (indeed, it is overwhelmingly lowercase [50][51], except in highly retrictive contexts that refer to specific populations who have adopted the term self-referentially as a name in English). This same situation is true of all such terms such as "native" and "aboriginal". "Aboriginal" is capitalized in reference to autochthonous Australians, and "Native" is capitalized in "Native Americans" in reference to the autochthonous peoples of what is now the US and sometimes (in mostly US usage) all of the Americas. But "native" is not capitalized (by the preponderance of modern reliable sources) in reference to Australians, nor "aboriginal" in reference to Americans, and neither is capitalized in "the native (aboriginal) peoples and languages of Siberia and Central Asia before the Soviet Union", etc. PS: There may be other over-capitalized articles of this sort, but perhaps take them one at a time, since some might pertain more narrowly to groups that have taken on "Indigenous" as a self-referential name/label.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC); revised 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tel al-Sultan massacreRafah tent camp attack – News sources have called it "attack", "massacre", "strike" and "airstrike". It is not yet clear which is the most WP:COMMONNAME. "Massacre" carries value judgement, and "airstrike" obscures the fact that many of the casualties weren't killed directly by the airstrike, but were burned alive in the resulting fire. "Strike" is very similar to "attack", but "attack" is consistent with other similar events like World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. I also think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan" and most sources seem to use "Rafah tent camp" or "Rafah displacement camp".VR (Please ping on reply) 18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ? – I'm unsure what the new title should be, but I'm sure that this one has an issue. The Israeli attack on Gaza has gone past 2023 into 2024. So, we can't keep the "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" part. Perhaps we could change it to "Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war", "Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war", or something different. Note that "2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" just redirects to Israel–Hamas war. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests


See also