Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

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: 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 users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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.

Requesting technical moves

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the top of the list, filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason=reason for 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

References

Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|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 NewName 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 28 May 2022" 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:

Note: 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)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that 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, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

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.

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 28 May 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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.[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 May 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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.[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 28 May 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
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.
Discussion
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 28 May 2022

– why Example (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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.).[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 May 2022

– why Example (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2022 (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:relisting}}, 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.

Notes

  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 is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 92 discussions have been relisted.

May 28, 2022

  • (Discuss)Iron Maiden (disambiguation)Iron Maiden – There is no primary topic for this capitalization; the supposed torture device has greater long term significance, but the band has greater usage - about four times the pageviews. WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply as this capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish topics, due to the most common capitalization prior to 1975 being Iron Maiden - see ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)HPE 3PAR3PAR – Unnecessary disambiguation. "HPE 3PAR" is not a subsidiary of HPE but rather the branding HPE uses for its hardware featuring 3PAR's technologies/patents that they acquired as part of the purchase (and even then the badging on that hardware just says "3PAR"). DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27, 2022

  • (Discuss)Indianapolis Museum of ArtNewfieldsSome condensed background from the article: The Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) is an art museum located at Newfields, a 152-acre (62 ha) campus that has several components (the art museum, gardens, historic mansion, etc.). The institution was founded in 1883 as the Art Association of Indianapolis and the first permanent museum was opened in 1906 as part of the John Herron Art Institute. In 1969, the Art Association of Indianapolis changed its name to the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and in 1970 the museum moved to its current location. At this point the entire campus and organization was referred to as the Indianapolis Museum of Art, but in 2017 the campus and organization were renamed "Newfields" in a rebranding intended to better reflect the breadth of offerings and venues. The "Indianapolis Museum of Art" now specifically refers to the main art museum building that acts as the cornerstone of the campus, as well as the legal name of the organization doing business as Newfields.[4] Nomination: I suggested this move 2.5 years ago. The move ran up against two major arguments: :1) Newfields, New Hampshire (and Newfields (CDP), New Hampshire) is a town/CDP that shares the name Newfields (it is the only conflicting article for "Newfields" on Newfield). This was not fully discussed due to the nomination failing primarily for the second argument. :2) The art museum (which is now called "The Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields") is the topic of the article. Switching it to Newfields is changing the topic of the article, not updating to the common name. I contend that this article has always been about an organization/institution, which is ultimately what an art museum is, and that the sourcing and branding for Newfields as the WP:COMMONNAME for that institution has only increased over the last 2.5 years. The institution changed their name from the "Art Association of Indianapolis" to the "Indianapolis Museum of Art" and finally to "Newfields". The IMA used to refer to the entirety of this organization, but now only refers to the building that houses their art collection and is the flagship component of Newfields. The article covers actions performed by the organization, not just the physical building and the art inside. When publications talk about actions taken by this organization that used to be called the IMA, they now primarily call it "Newfields". Some examples of either using Newfields exclusively to refer to the museum/organization or primarily using "Newfields": [2][3][4][5], And a couple where the name change is specifically cited as a name change, as opposed to an additional name: "Newfields (née the Indianapolis Museum of Art)" "... Newfields, the institution formerly known as the Indianapolis Museum of Art". And some images/the official website showing how the museum presents itself: [6][7] [8]the organizations website. And finally their tax returns showing Newfields is a formal d/b/a legal name for the organization that used to be the IMA. To me it is clear the name of this article should be moved to Newfields, and I believe no disambiguation is necessary as the only other similarly named article has it's own natural disambiguation of ", New Hampshire". Cerebral726 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kharkiv CollegiumKharkov Collegium – The discussion was closed before we reached consensus. I wanted to write a detailed answer but I was in a trip for three days. Please consider this request as part of the discussion that ended unexpectedly. Today I am writing a detailed comment on the last reply of my opponent. Ушкуйник (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26, 2022

  • (Discuss)Rainbow High (dolls)Rainbow High – This article is fits perfectly with the more simpler title. As confusing as this sounds, this topic's notability and verifiability should not be an issue at all. Should this move not materialize, I'll understand and find other routes to better present this. Millions are searching this on Wikipedia as at now — I included — and they got to the wrong location. Intrisit (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gorakhpur ZooShaheed Ashfaq Ullah Khan Zoological Park – It is a newly opened Zoo. Some people changed it's name at Wikipedia saying that Gorakhpur Zoo is a common name. For a newly opened place, I don't think policy of common name should be placed when even before opening it has the same name as it has now. PS - It is named after someone who is from Minority community, maybe this would be problem for some people. Curaj 4 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Denial of the HolodomorHolodomor denial –   Better fulfils the WP:CRITERIA: * Naturalness: it’s arguably less awkward. * Concision: it’s shorter. * Consistency: with titles Genocide denial and every other article and subcategory of Category:Genocide denial. WP:COMMONNAME asks us to use the most widely used name in WP:RS’s and this is it. For example, the the LOC subject headings used worldwide in English-language bibliographic cataloguing are Holodomor denial and Holodomor denial literature,[10][11] and Google Books Ngram shows that this term appears in sources, while the current title is below its threshold for inclusion.[12]  —Michael Z. 16:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Melakha39 Melakhot – Seconded. What the heck is this move? The resulting sentence makes no sense whatsoever. This is a mistake. While we could say "Melakha is prohibited work on the Sabbath, of which there are 39 types (39 Melakhot)" and be grammatically correct, the previous name was better. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2022

  • (Discuss)Beats Per Minute (website)Beats Per Minute (music blog) – Generally speaking, the (website) disambiguator is generic and uninformative, and should be avoided. Its also misleading because the subject here isn't simply a "website", but an enterprise. Multiple sources describe BPM as a music blog, and the operator a music blogger. -- Netoholic @ 07:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2021 Centennial Airport mid-air collision2021 Colorado mid-air collision – No other mid-air collision meeting general notability guidelines seems to have occurred in Colorado during 2021; multiple searches of mainstream news sites all seem to lead to this specific crash. As per the previous discussion, this crash is particularly confounding geographically; the media generally refers to the site as "Denver" or "Centennial Airport", but the collision itself did not take place on airport grounds, the Cirrus crashed off-airport, and neither the airport, the collision site, nor the final location of the Cirrus wreck are actually within Denver corporate limits. Due to a lack of comparable crashes, "Colorado" is adequate to meet WP:COMMONNAME while neatly resolving the geographical debate. Carguychris (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Yuri Kim (ambassador)Yuri Kim – Kim Jong-il was reportedly known as Yuri Kim while living in Khabarovsk, Russia during World War II. He never used or acknowledged that name publicly, North Korean biographies omit any mention that he ever lived in Russia, and he is not regularly known by the name internationally either. That is to say, anyone who might know that KJI was once known as Yuri Kim, also knows that he was better known as KJI. Meanwhile the subject of this article is publicly known by the name, which is her given Korean name. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2022

  • (Discuss)SC DHfK Leipzig e.V.SC DHfK Leipzig – Currently, SC DHfK Leipzig redirects to SC DHfK Leipzig Handball, the handball section of SC DHfK Leipzig. SC DHfK Leipzig and SC DHfK Leipzig e.V. are both ways to refer to the main club, SC DHfK Leipzig. The suffix e.V. is not included commonly when refering to a club, only when referencing the full legal name. Links to "SC DHfK Leipzig" are mostly related to athletics, handball-related links have been changed to "SC DHfK Leipzig Handball". As the handball section is the most prominent one (outside historical context), an About template should then be added here to link to the handball page. Aleph Kaph (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)The Bell GameBell Game – Search engine results suggest that this is more commonly known without the initial definite article. The redirect currently at the move target is to an article which does not mention something by that name. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)AlboAlbo (disambiguation) – Albo almost certainly refers to the current Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, hence I'm proposing that Albo should redirect to his page and this page be moved to Albo (disambiguation). It's a particularly prevalent nickname in online sources, none of which make reference to the other entries on this disambiguation page, which are all stub articles, and fail to provide any indication of being of equal significance as the minister and prevent him from being considered the primary topic. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 23, 2022

  • (Discuss)Junior (education) → ? – The current title is an incomplete disambiguation. There are multiple meanings of "junior" in the context of education:  :# A third-year student at high school or university (seems to be specific to the US or at least to the US and Canada).  :# A stage of overall schooling, as defined by the schooling systems of various countries and parts thereof, hence junior school.  :# A younger or lower-ranked pupil at a school. My secondary school had a rank system whereby pupils were (put simply) classed as juniors, middles, seniors or prefects. Pupils progressed through the ranks as they progressed through the year groups, more or less, though for some of my time there pupils were promoted on the basis of merit and not just age. In my later years at that school, the rank system was apparently abolished (save for the special prefect status), though the school added younger year groups and created a "junior department" for the teaching of these. As it stands, this article is purely about definition 1. As you see, this sense is specific to a small part of the world, and in any case disambiguated titles should not be still ambiguous. But I'm not sure what the best new title would be. I see from here and Junior school that Canada has both definitions 1 and 2? So what would be a good title? Junior (United States and Canada)? Junior (North American education)? Hmm.... — Smjg (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fast Break FuryRochester RazorSharks – This would reverse a page move from November so that a new article can be written about the Fast Break Fury. No reliable sources have been presented (nor found with a search) that indicate that the Fast Break Fury is a renamed version of the Rochester RazorSharks. Powers T 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Pen-y-graigPen-y-graig, Carmarthenshire – I don't think the hamlet in Carmarthenshire is the primary topic for "Pen-y-graig" when there is a much larger settlement at Penygraig in Rhondda Cynon Taf which is cy:Pen-y-graig in Welsh. In English its community (municipality) is named "Pen-y-graig". There is also a settlement in Gwynedd and a number of other places called "Pen-y-graig"[23] (click "Try a wider place search") though none other than the Gwynedd one are OS settlements and thus probably don't need articles however this title should probably be a DAB between the Carmarthenshire, Gwynedd and Rhondda Cynon Taf ones. The Rhondda Cynon Taf one has 115 views compared with only 21[[24]] for the Carmarthenshire one and the Rhondda Cynon Taf one's community has a population of 5,554 while the Carmarthenshire one probably has a population of less than 100. Google returns a maps of the community as the 1st result. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)OpenSearch (software)OpenSearch – I propose that we move OpenSearch to OpenSearch (syndication) and OpenSearch (software) to OpenSearch (with a hatnote disambiguation link) because the software project is now better-known than the syndication protocol and is almost always what users are searching for. Because I am a product manager on the OpenSearch project and therefore have a conflict of interest, I am not making the move myself. The OpenSearch web search syndication protocol was defined in 2005 by A9, part of Amazon.com; it continues to be used. Amazon Web Services, also part of Amazon.com, initiated the open source OpenSearch search engine software project in April 2021, and it is growing rapidly. The OpenSearch trademark is owned by Amazon. The transfer of the name from the syndication protocol to the software project is supported by the maintainer of the syndication protocol. Under our Article titles policy, when two topics have the same name, if one of them is the primary topic, that topic should use the unqualified title, in this case, OpenSearch. The primary topic is defined as: * A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. * A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Here is some data showing that the software project is primary with respect to usage: * In Google Trends, the term [opensearch] was rated 1.5 from 2017-2020, and rapidly gained in popularity after the OpenSearch project was announced in April 2021. By the end of 2021, it averaged around 50, and for all of 2022 so far, it has averaged 71. Since there has been no recent activity around the protocol, we can infer that the difference between the current level and the stable pre-2021 level represents interest in the project, showing that the project is about 46x more popular as a search topic than the syndication protocol. The Related topics and Related queries also show that the term is being used for the software project. * In Google Search (tested in an incognito window), only one result of the top 10 (the sixth) is about the protocol. That is, Google’s algorithms estimate that the project is of much more interest to searchers than the protocol. * On Github, the software project repo has about 10x more stars and 2x more watches than the protocol, showing interest among developers. * On Wikipedia, pageviews for the project have been increasing steadily, and are now about 70% higher than for the protocol. I don’t have a crystal ball to predict long-term significance, but the protocol is a more niche interest – primarily among developers of browsers and Web search syndication systems – than the software, which is already widely used. Other things called OpenSearch are much less common: OpenSearchServer gets under 10% as many pageviews as either of the main ones, and the Open Search Foundation does not have a Wikipedia article. From the above data, it seems clear that the software project is now the primary topic by a large factor, so it should be at the title OpenSearch. The syndication protocol can use the disambiguated form OpenSearch (syndication). Macrakis (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ISO/IEC base media file formatISO base media file format – There was a previous renaming of this article in October 2019 (see the record of that above on this page). This request would revert that renaming, which was misguided. What people may not have noticed is that on 11 October 2019, just a few days before starting the renaming discussion, the same anonymous IP made a lot of improper changes to the article (see here). This included changing the titles of many of the cited sources to make it appear that those documents had different titles than what they actually have. I just reverted the obviously improper citation changes (see here). The proper and official title of this standard is "ISO base media file format", even though it was developed jointly by ISO and IEC. Just look at the official standard title here (not the numerical designation ISO/IEC 14496-12, but the actual title that follows after "Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 12:". See also this press release from ISO and this similar press release from IEC about the standard. The formal name as well as the common name of this standard is "ISO base media file format", not "ISO/IEC base media file format". See also this and this. As far as I know, nobody calls this the ISO/IEC base media file format unless they've recently been reading Wikipedia. When proposing the previous renaming, the anonymous IP didn't even say that anyone actually uses their proposed name, and no one made any comments while the discussion was open. I think people were just not paying attention to the proposal. The IEC is a highly respected organization that has been involved in the development of this standard from day 1, but its name is not part of the title and is not part of the common name of the standard. Maybe it should have been, but it isn't. Mulligatawny (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. -- EN-Jungwon 14:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 何をしましたか?那晚安啦。 08:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jo In-sungZo In-sung – In my prior request to have this page moved, I failed to notice a policy that is of particular relevance. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Family name states, "Unless the subject is known to prefer otherwise such as Kim, Lee, or Park, family names are romanized per Revised Romanization (RR) for South Koreans and pre-1945 Koreans, or McCune–Reischauer (MR) for North Koreans." This subject is known to prefer otherwise. His family name is romanized Zo on his agency's site, his Japanese fan club site, the Korean Film Council's site, KMDb, and the English-language posters for his two most recent feature films, Escape from Mogadishu and The Great Battle. My previous attempt ended with no consensus because I couldn't find any clarity on whether people's own preferred romanizations are preferred by English Wikipedia for Korean names. It turns out there is such a rule, but it's hidden on a page I didn't think to look at. Tempjrds (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 22, 2022

  • (Discuss)2020 Calabasas helicopter crashDeath of Kobe Bryant – Article title should reflect the reason the event is notable, as much as reasonably possible. If Kobe and his daughter weren’t on that helicopter flight, it’s almost 100% guaranteed that the crash wouldn’t be notable for a standalone WP article like this. This has a far greater overall impact in people’s minds of being related to Kobe Bryant than it is about being related to helicopters or aviation crashes. Even more so, the impact of its relevance to Calabasas is minuscule compared to Kobe Bryant. I am reminded of the article for Attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman where Truman was completely untouched and a Secret Service agent by the name of Leslie Coffelt was killed. If the titling for that article paralleled the title for this article by using a description that’s broad and all-encompassing and tries to “cover all the bases”, it would be something like 1950 Blair House attack. There are likely far more people discovering the meaning of Calabasas for the first time through their prior knowledge of Kobe Bryant than there are the other way around – discovering the meaning of Kobe Bryant for the first time through prior knowledge of Calabasas Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Petronas TowersPetronas Twin Towers – Using Google search results, there are 885,000 results for Petronas Towers and 1,850,000 results for Petronas Twin Towers. The latter seems to be by far the common name for the towers. (Note, the number seems to change constantly and may not be accurate, but so far the latter outnumbers the former in every instance I tried searching.) On Google News, there are 6,760 results for Petronas Towers and 7,430 results for Petronas Twin Towers. This is a closer margin, but the latter is still the common name. Not sure if I have missed out anything, so do feel free to oppose with your arguments. I am aware there are two prior move requests, but the common name seems to have changed since 2007. Seloloving (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)One man, one voteOne person, one vote – The above sources section discusses that as a legal phrase, the version "one person, one vote" is more common, sometimes by a significant factor, which means WP:COMMONNAME supports this move. Even in common language, the above sources section shows multiple references that the version "one person, one vote" is more common, which means WP:COMMONNAME supports this move. The previous book ngram claims are old, the latest ngram from 2019 shows 1:1 usage in books. Besides manual of style MOS:GENDER applies. The legal term "one person one vote" does not include children, there is no ambiguity. Due to the decades-long controversy, the WP:SNOW does not apply and this request should not be closing early. HudecEmil (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)OptoformOptical cage system – This article describes one vendor's optical cage system. An article on optical cage systems in general would be better balanced and more useful. The history section here covers other systems briefly, so I think this article could be a good start on a broader coverage of the topic. I propose to move it and rewrite it as a general article on this topic.--Srleffler (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)PegglePeggle (video game) – A rather lengthy and long-running series in which no particular game has primacy, despite the original game being the most developed article. Moving the series page to primary will help it expand and reflect the actual scope of the series, as well as bring it in line with other video game series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 06:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)TV Sir TristramRFA Sir Tristram – Per consensus above, and reasons provided by those contributing that consensus. The editor who first moved the page, (and then moved it again), did so without providing rationale in summaries or discussing on talk page, nor are they expected to as they have a history of page move-warring and refusing to engage on talk pages. - wolf 00:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)What's Going On (Marvin Gaye song)What's Going On (song)Page views indicate that the Marvin Gaye song is far and away the primary song, receiving more views in any given day than the other songs with the same name get in a month put together. There are also several cover versions discussed in the article, which may make it confusing for users looking for those without knowing the original artist. Turnagra (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 21, 2022

  • (Discuss)Ahwazi ArabsKhuzestani Arabs – Academic sources use the latter term while the former is an ethno-nationalist term. A few scholarly sources using 'Khuzestani Arabs': * Lucas, Christopher; Manfredi, Stefano, eds. (2020), Arabic and contact-induced change, Language Science Press, ISBN 978-3-96110-251-8 * Elling, Rasmus Christian (2013), Minorities in Iran: Nationalism and Ethnicity after Khomeini, Palgrave Macmillan US, doi:10.1057/9781137069795, ISBN 978-1-137-06979-5 * Hajjej, Abdelhafidh; Almawi, Wassim Y.; Arnaiz-Villena, Antonio; Hattab, Lasmar; Hmida, Slama (2018), "The genetic heterogeneity of Arab populations as inferred from HLA genes", PLOS One, 13 (3), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192269 * Farjadian, Shirin; Ghaderi, Abbas (2007), "HLA class II genetic diversity in Arabs and Jews of Iran", Iranian Journal of Immunology, 4 (2), PMID 17652848Pahlevun (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ingrooves". Ingrooves Music Group. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Ingrooves Music Group Expands Into Iceland With Acquisition Of Alda Music, The Country's Leading Distributor And Popular Music Label". Ingrooves Music Group. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
  3. ^ Paine, Andre (12 February 2019). "UMG to acquire Ingrooves, set to expand global distribution business". Music Week. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
  4. ^ "2018 Form 990 Tax Return" (PDF). Newfields. Retrieved October 2, 2019.
  5. ^ "JTBC's New Look as Studio LuluLala Heralds Plans to Expand to the Next Level". Variety. April 24, 2022.
  6. ^ "The minister of Sports, Roxana Maracineanu". sports.gouv.fr (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  7. ^ "Déclaration de Mme Roxana Maracineanu, ministre des sports, lors de la présentation du guide "Sport de Haut niveau et maternité, c'est possible", Paris le 18 février 2022". vie-publique.fr (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  8. ^ "Recherche". Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  9. ^ "Statement on Russia's war on Ukraine & international sport". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  10. ^ "Décret n° 2020-967 du 31 juillet 2020". www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  11. ^ "Une nouvelle aide sectorielle accordée aux centres équestres et aux poney clubs recevant du public". agriculture.gouv.fr (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-21.
  12. ^ "Grands événements sportifs internationaux (GESI) : Lancement du label « Terrain d'égalité »". Ministère chargé de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, de la diversité et de l'égalité des chances (in French). Retrieved 2022-05-21.
Aeengath (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Counties of FinlandRegions of Finland – There was some confusion about the full scope of the recent administrative reform that came into effect last year and its effects on the English nomenclature. The previous government's reform plan would have transfered the health and social services to the already existing regions and renaming them counties. However the current government's reform that ended up going through left the existing regions (maakunta/landskap) intact while establish new Wellbeing services counties (hyvinvointialue/välfärdsområde), the borders of which are based on those of the regions'. For example Statistics Finland treats the two as separate classifications, https://www2.stat.fi/en/luokitukset/maakunta/ https://www2.stat.fi/en/luokitukset/hyvinvointialue/ Given that there's already a page for the Wellbeing services counties, which also discusses the elected county councils, the name of this page should be reverted back to Regions of Finland. Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Raidió Teilifís ÉireannRTÉ – Using the abbreviations as the page title satisfies the naming WP:CRITERIA. It is clearly more concise. It is certainly as recognisable as Raidió Teilifís Éireann. I would argue that no precision is lost, although it is of course not its official name (but WP:OFFICIAL). Most significantly, it is more natural, in the sense that we describe Bryan Dobson as a "presenter with RTÉ" rather a "presenter with Raidió Teilifís Éireann", as so also is a more common name for the corporation (see WP:COMMONNAME). In terms of consistency, it would match the various pages beginning with RTÉ, as against none others using the full name. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Simon and MartinaEatyourkimchi – Article was originally titled "Eatyourkimchi" and there was plenty of coverage using that. They rebranded as Simon and Martina (with appropriate coverage as well) since 2016, but they have returned to using "Eatyourkimchi" in 2020. lullabying (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC) lullabying (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Max Christie (basketball)Max Christie – The current "Max Christie" page is a Scottish footballer who got the non-disambiguated page due to being made first. When googling "Max Christie", the basketball player comes up entirely. Current page view numbers have the basketball player page at around 5-10x the amount of daily views as the other pages combined, and yesterday received 873 views to 56 by the default page. Debartolo2917 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ruby Ridge → ?Siege of Ruby Ridge The area itself isn't notable. The siege/standoff that occurred there is. Ruby Ridge is just another patch of land if the siege hadn't happened. The article should reflect this, maybe changing some sections around in order to fit the new name. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ThalíaThalía (singer) – per balance of WP:CRITERIA, visually non-distinctive from the Thalia dab page, restore parenthetical disambiguation but leave bare name Thalía as primary redirect. The tiny accent on i not visible to many readers and many English non-high MOS quality sources such as pop webpages can't show the accent. Reader unfriendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sisodias of MewarList of Ranas of Mewar – Currently, this page consists of :
    * History **Conflicts with the Mughals **Under British Raj **Post-Independence *List of Maharanas
    The Udaipur State page also consists of the same structure but also includes information about the Guhila dynasty. So this page must be made an exclusive page for the list, hence must be Renamed and all the other information in this page will be Merged the Udaipur State. >>> Extorc.talk 06:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Reverse sexismDiscrimination against men – I suggest renaming this article to Discrimination against men. The reasons are: The controversy of the term "reverse sexism". The term "reverse sexism" raises big questions among both masculists and feminists. Nathansong and Young criticize it in their book Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man. A highly respected profeminist sociologist Fred Pincus in Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth is clearly distinguishing reverse discrimination against men (only some illegal pseudo-affirmative acts) and intentional discrimination against men (pp. 121-140). Volumetric scientific works about sexism against men called Discrimination against men, for example, the dissertation of Pasi Malmi who doesn't use plaintly the term reverse sexism. In Russian language there is a Belarusian book "Дискриминация мужчин как проблемный вопрос общественных отношений". There are no current reliable sources which analise discrimination against men in details using the term reverse sexism. Aman Siddiqui doesn't use the term reverse sexism. Wikipedia should follow scientific literature. The term is obviously out of date. So, I think that the arcticle needs to be renamed to Discrimination against men.--Reprarina (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Battle of the Siverskyi Donets2022 Donets incident near Bilohorivka – The Donets river (its article is titled Donets in Wikipedia, not Siverskyi Donets) has been crossed by Russian forces before, near Izium and near Kharkiv. See the map of the invasion we have on Commons [30]. Thus, this article's name is inappropriate, and readers who haven't heard of this story might not be able to realize whether this is a general article about engagements in the river during the invasion or not. Also, this was not a battle, Russian and Ukrainian forces did not directly fight each other. So I propose this title which I believe is more precise both in location and in time. I've had several other ideas, such as "2022 attempted Russian crossing of the Donets near Bilohorivka", "2022 Donets river incident near Bilohorivka", "8–11 May 2022 Donets incident" and "8–11 May 2022 attempted Russian crossing of the Donets", but I believe "2022 Donets incident near Bilohorivka" is both the shortest and the most precise title we can get. Super Ψ Dro 16:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Hungarian irredentismGreater Hungary – This is by far the most common way of referring to this idea. The search "Greater Hungary" -wikipedia gives me 49,200 Google results, while "Hungarian irredentism" -wikipedia gives me just 4,520. The former gives me 1,470 results in Google Scholar [31], while the latter, 455 [32]. Currently, the Wikipedia page Greater Hungary hosts a disambiguation page, and it says that the term may refer to this article or to the old Kingdom of Hungary. I am pretty sure most people wouldn't search Greater Hungary and expect to get the Kingdom of Hungary's page. Super Ψ Dro 16:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Codfish IslandCodfish Island / Whenua Hou – In recent sources, the island is almost exclusively referred to with a dual name in some capacity (be that with an unspaced slash, just a space, hyphenated, comma,parentheses and spaced slash, with the order of the names varying. While this makes any form of meta-analysis even more difficult than usual, it should be clear from the outset that the dual name is frequently used, with each component name also used interchangeably with no clear preference of one over the other. As such, the dual name provides the most opportunity for a reader to find the island they are thinking of, whether they know it as the dual name, Codfish Island, or Whenua Hou. Per WP:NZNC guidelines, we should use the spaced slash format and the order as established in the gazetteer, which is what is proposed in this move. Turnagra (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Military of AfghanistanMilitary history of Afghanistan – Now that the Taliban have mastered the Afghan army, the Afghan military should be changed to Afghan military history like other countries to describe the military of Afghanistan in different eras, such as Military history of the United States or Military history of India Бмхүн (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)The In-Between (2019 film)The In-Between – This should be moved back to its base name. This is the only entry at In Between (disambiguation) with this specific spelling, and the only entry with a hyphen, so it does not need parenthetical disambiguation per WP:SMALLDETAILS. It of course can certainly be confused for The In Between, or users seeking this page may omit the hyphen; moving to the base name will make it feasible to include this in the hatnote at The In Between and save users from going through the disambiguation page, which includes many other entries that are less likely to be sought by users searching terms beginning with "The". Mdewman6 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

References


See also