Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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 27 June 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 27 June 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:37, 27 June 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 27 June 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:37, 27 June 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 27 June 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:37, 27 June 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 27 June 2022

– why Example (talk) 17:37, 27 June 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 27 June 2022

– why Example (talk) 17:37, 27 June 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. 72 discussions have been relisted.

June 27, 2022

  • (Discuss)Cherbourg-OctevilleCherbourg – While this is legally the correct name, for English speakers (as this is the English Wikipedia), the common name is, I believe, simply "Cherbourg". Nobody would ever say "I'm getting the ferry from Dublin / Portsmouth to Cherbourg-Octeville" - it just doesn't happen. I picked this article as opposed to Cherbourg-en-Cotentin simply because this one looks like the most developed, and somebody going to the other article by typing "Cherbourg" just looking for travel or military history information would come away wondering why it was so undeveloped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)King's Garden (historical)King's Garden (biblical place) – This place name is based on biblical theology. It requires disambiguation because there are other places known as "King's Garden", such as King's Garden (Odense), Denmark. As with other place names where the biblical place name clashes with a modern geography, a suitable biblical disambiguator is added, e.g.: Shiloh (biblical city). There has been an attempt in recent years to tie the name King's Garden to the Al-Bustan neighbourhood in Silwan, East Jerusalem, but as B'Tselem notes in the article: "the exact location and nature of the biblical garden are not known and there are no archeological or other findings in al-Bustan to suggest that this is in fact the location." As such, the location of this place remains in the domain of the largely hypothetical, making the biblical disambiguator only more apt. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)King's Garden (Silwan)Al-Bustan (East Jerusalem) – This is an article about Al-Bustan, a Palestinian neighbourhood in the Silwan area of East Jerusalem, that is subject to an attempted forced displacement by the Israeli authorities with the aim of creating a park named the "King's Garden" in homage to something biblical. Numerically "Al-Bustan+Silwan" draws 42,000 hits in a google search versus 1,500 hits for "King's Garden" + Silwan; however, the more obvious point to make is that simply planning to redevelop a location does not automatically make that place someplace else - that just makes it the name of a redevelopment scheme. As this report: "The "King's Garden" Plan in Al-Bustan" correctly phrases it - the 'King's Garden' would be better described as being IN Al-Bustan. B'Tselem calls the development plan 'a tourist park' in the Al-Bustan Neighbourhood [1]. Again, a development within an area does not that area rename. Instead, the logical semantic structuring of this (were we to structure it) would be: King's Garden (proposed development), Al-Bustan, Silwan, East Jerusalem, but Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTALBALL), and we don't create articles about things that may or may not exist in the future. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes2022 Al-Aqsa clashes – Most of the events took place in the Al Aqsa compound, not the mosque building / prayer hall. The Israeli police did enter the mosque building / prayer hall, but not clear to me that their were "clashes" or "storming" in that specific location. If unfamiliar with the source of confusion here, see ongoing RM at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Requested move 30 May 2022; though this RM proposal is not dependent on the outcome there. Having read some of the underlying sources here, we have got some parts wrong due to this confusion – e.g. NYT footnote 10 discusses activities in the Aqsa compound but we describe it as happening in the mosque building. Could add the word "compound" to the title as some sources do, but this solution seems better per WP:CONCISE Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Medical abortionMedication abortion – What do editors think of renaming the article from "Medical abortion" to "Medication abortion"? Google search result-count suggests that "Medical abortion" is slightly more commonly used, but "Medication abortion" is also heavily used. It seems clear that the current title, "Medical abortion" is potentially very confusing, because surgical abortions are also "medical" - at least to any layman. My understanding is that "medical abortion" became more commonly used because, within the community of medical experts, the word "medical" suggests medicine or drugs ... so that explains how that term originated. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for _everyone_ and since there are two phrases that are both commonly used, it seems better to use the term that is more understandable & less ambiguous. Historical search trends of the two phrases (in USA) are: * https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%22Medical%20abortion%22 * https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%22medication%20abortion%22 Since both phrases are heavily used, it seems better to use the one that is more clear & less ambiguous to the layman. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26, 2022

  • (Discuss)JTBC StudiosStudio Lululala – JTBC has recently changed the company name to Studio LuluLala based on their existing studio prior to the company rebrand.[1] Would like to have the company name to be changed.

References

  1. ^ "JTBC's New Look as Studio LuluLala Heralds Plans to Expand to the Next Level". Variety. April 24, 2022.
VernardoLau (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Turnagra (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25, 2022

  • (Discuss)Gauss's constantLemniscate constant – Lemniscate constant is more widely known/used and also doesn't overlap with Gauss's gravitational constant. * Google pages of results: 12 for "Lemniscate constant", 11 for "Gauss's constant" * Google hits with quotes: 3920 vs 1490 * Google scholar: 149 vs 43 * Google books, pages of results with direct quotes: 6 vs 12, but Gauss's results are mostly for the gravitational constant. * Material: "Mathematical Constants" by Finch calls his section "Gauss's lemniscate constant". Also [9] uses the term "Gauss's constant" to refer to the lemniscate constant. * Overlap: Since the two constants differ by a factor of pi almost all formulas/properties can be adjusted from one to the other Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)TipiTepee – This was requested by user:DemonDays64 with the following rationale: "As stated at the top of the page the current location, Tipi, is an unusual spelling and Tepee is more common (personally I have never seen the former). Tepee is used all over the page and I do not know why the page is now at Tipi, as the move log only shows one move from Tipi to Tepee, 11 years ago." I did the move, but then it was contested, so I've undone the move and started this RM instead. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Angelo Troy RiveraGelo Rivera – Per WP:COMMONNAME. All references in the article refer to the subject as "Gelo Rivera". A Google search shows this name is used in the significant majority of English-speaking sources, as well as his verified Instagram account. – 2.O.Boxing 08:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Aldobrandini MadonnaGarvagh Madonna – Both these paintings, the first by Raphael and the second by Titian, are in the same museum (the National Gallery), which on its website refers to them as The Garvagh Madonna and The Aldobrandini Madonna respectively. (We would drop the definite article per MOS:ART: "Works whose usual title includes the name of a former owner or a location do not include "the" in the article title".) There are more results for "Garvagh Madonna" than for "Aldobrandini Madonna" in Google Scholar (67:62), JSTOR (25:10) and Google itself (~14,200:~13,500), regardless of whether the latter title refers to the the Raphael or the Titian, so there's a WP:COMMONNAME case for calling the Raphael the Garvagh Madonna. The article on the Titian could have a hatnote along the lines of This article is about the painting by Titian. For the painting by Raphael also known by this title, see Garvagh Madonna. Ham II (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)BiohubCZ Biohub – If we are not going to use the full name, we should use CZ Biohub as that is how they shorten it themselves. See, for example [11]. They don't refer to themselves as just "Biohub" and I don't think we should either. ZimZalaBim talk 16:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 06:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 05:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Football League GreeceFootball League (Greece) – This article was moved 2 years ago without a discussion and no edit summary, however none of the sources, external links, or images used in the article call it "Football League Greece". Propose restoring the title to the previous one used. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 04:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dêmqog, Ngari PrefectureDemchok, Ngari Prefecture – Demchok is the standard spelling of the village name in English language sources, as the page content and the sources cited here themselves exemplify. The current page title, "Dêmqog", is an outdated pinyin transliteration of the Chinese version of the name, which is no longer in use. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)EnergiaEnergia (rocket) – The rocket is not a primary topic. The rocket company that made the Energia rocket is also named "Energia," and also has a 75-year history. The rocket is taking less than half 6 out of 10 of the page views for possible targets. The equivalent article on the Russian Wikipedia is disambiguated, as should ours. Schierbecker (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Australian scrub pythonSimalia kinghorni – Assuming the species status described in this article is valid (which ITIS and The Reptile Database confirm), a different species, Simalia amethistina, is also called the "scrub python", and both of them are found in Australia, so the current title is ambiguous. I also don't know where the "Australian" part of this article title came from, since I have not found that word included in the common names given by ITIS or The Reptile Database. IUCN does not seem to list this species; however, an IUCN search returns three results for "scrub python" – Morelia amethistina (a.k.a. Simalia amethistina), Simalia tracyae and Simalia clastolepis, which seems to confirm that the name is ambiguous. A search on ITIS or The Reptile Database for "scrub python" yields two results – Simalia amethistina and this one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Medieval metalMittelalter metal – The genre is more commonly known as Mittelalter metal since it is mostly exclusive to Germany and does not encompass all medieval themed folk metal. Similar to Neue Deutsche Härte, the genre is more of an exclusive German style that is referred to as such. Medieval metal is just an English translation that is more of the alternate name here. Nhb55840 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24, 2022

  • (Discuss)Cent (currency)Cent – Obvious primary topic. The other topics are specific coins (which wouldn't be primary over this article because this article is about the general topic), a part of a specific city, an Old English name of a city, and a few units of measurement, none of which get anywhere near as many views as this page. (I wanted to link the page view comparison here, but I could only get the link for the views of one page, so if you want to see it, you'll have to enter the page names yourself.) Evil Sith Lord (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Battle of the Siverskyi DonetsMay 2022 battle of the Donets – The last RM has ended in nothing, but I still argue that the title is not precise and that there's far better possible options. We are already in late June and I haven't seen this event receiving much attention lately. I think people in a few years could see the current title and not be sure what to expect. It could be an article about WW2, the 2014 war, the 2022 invasion, maybe even some Mongol invasion. So it is clear that there's basis for calling this a battle and not an incident or similar. A "near Bilohorivka" type of title is also problematic since the article has been expanded ever since the last RM was started and it now includes other attempted crossings on other villages not particularly less notable than Bilohorivka. Thus, I propose May 2022 battle of the Donets. The month of May has passed and I believe there have not been other notable events at the river during the invasion, so adding the month and year to the title would suffice for precision. Adding only the year would not be enough as I can tell from memory right now that on April there was fighting going on in the river after the Russians won in Izium. I would also like to drop "Siverskyi" from the current title as the river's name in Wikipedia is Donets. Furthermore, "Siverskyi Donets" is the name in Ukrainian but the river also passes through Russia. May 2022 battle at the Donets is another option, less proper name-like and more natural, and it could enter into consideration. However, I don't want this RM to end in no consensus again so I will not be striving too hard for this, and "May 2022 battle of the Donets" remains as the primary proposal. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)DassaretaeDexaroi – The name of the tribe that is the subject of this article is recorded as Dexaroi by ancient Greek writer Hecataeus of Miletus, cited by Stephanus of Byzantium. Whether the Dexaroi were the same as the Dassaretae, a tribe that is mentioned in Roman times, is a matter of dispute among scholars. The name of the article should not be hypothetical, misleading, and contrasting with the views of many present-day scholars. Βατο (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2022

  • (Discuss)Fermented teaDark tea – the use of "fermented tea” for heicha (even if denotatively correct)is misleading and could be a cause for misunderstanding, as it conflicts with the established and current tea industry terminology. Laozha (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)Jimmie Rodgers – I consider that this page should be moved to "Jimmie Rodgers" (as also noted by other people on its talk page). Currently, "Jimmie Rodgers" redirects to "James Rodgers", which is in of itself a disambiguation page. There are but two people with the exact spelling "Jimmie Rodgers": the original Jimmie Rodgers, whose biography is now contained under the title "Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)" and then "Jimmie Rodgers (pop singer)", who archived fame in the late 1950s. "Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)" currently has on top of the entry a "not to be confused with" notice that links to the pop singer. Now, since old Jimmie Rodgers is considered the "father of country music" and he is often cited as such by major publications and the Country Music Hall of Fame (1, 2, 3) it would be more relevant to link the entry directly to him, with the link on his article offering the link to the pop singer. I'm more than positive that most of the readers are searching for the country singer due to his major fame and influence (not putting down the pop singer, who had a briefer, but also remarkable career). I think to most readers it is frustrating to land on the page "James Rodgers" and to have to look for the singer among multiple names with radically different spellings. It is not even easy for the people who happen to be looking for the pop singer. GDuwenHoller! 20:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Stone (disambiguation)Stone – No clear primary topic for the singular or plural, Rock (geology) has 17,536 views but Stone (unit) has 12,081[[16]]. This likely makes the rock meaning not much more likely than any other since it also includes the usage for "Rock(s)" though the rock meaning may be primary by long-term significance. Stone (2010 film) has 2,200, Stone, Staffordshire has 1,438 and Stone (1974 film) has 1,395 though the films probably lack long-term significance, Dr. Stone has more (28,549)[[17]] but is a PTM. According to the DAB The Rolling Stones is often called "the Stones" which has 169,893 views[[18]]. Google results for Stone returns nothing for the rock meaning on the 1st page of results but does return the WP articles for the town in Staffordshire and unit and the Britannica article for the unit. Images does return only the rock meaning and while Books returns the rock first, the other results aren't for it though they appear to be PTMs. Google for Stones returns the WP article for the band and the unit, Images returns only the rock and Books returns the band first. Its possible that there is no primary topic for the singular but for the plural there is but due to the existence of the unit also being countable as well as the band being a target there seems to be no primary topic for the plural either. There was a contested request made by User:CactiStaccingCrane, @Amakuru and Kj cheetham: who contested. The Stone redirect could be moved to Stone (geology) or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Galaxy HighGalaxy High School – Most of the websites I could find about this series call it "Galaxy High School", not "Galaxy High". The websites even display pictures of the show's title screens and packaging with the name stated as "Galaxy High School". JIP | Talk 17:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 14:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Pandemonium (TV series)Here We Go (TV series) – The current name relates to a single-episode (pilot?) programme: now that a full series has been broadcast, it seems logical to rename the page to match the series, with an explanation in the opening paragraph that the series was preceded by the one-off episode. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sheikh–Wazed familySheikh family – The entire article here about Sheikh Mujib and his family and relatives with Sheikh title without any official surname as per Bangladeshi Muslim tradition! Sheikh mujib Daughters never officially use any surname like Wazed or Siddig! Currently only Sheikh Hasina‘s son use Wazed surname, when the entire article describes about hundreds of people with common sheikh title!! 2A0A:A547:22D2:0:409:825F:EE98:111A (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 11:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Kelly SweetHaliene – Haliene is now a more recognizable name than her real name, and most recent reliable sources refer to her by said stage name. Surprisingly this article is quite old, and her activity under her real name isn't as relevant anymore. EDM fan 2 (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ShakyaSakya (tribe) – The Pali name Sakya is used in the majority of contemporary writing, both academic and non-academic, pertaining to this tribe, while the Sanskrit form Shakya is less often used. This is visible in the list of sources used for this article, where the majority spelling is the Pali rather then the Sanskrit one. The name of the entry should therefore accurately reflect this use of the tribe's name. This would also facilitate searches by individuals, given that they would likely be more familiar with the Pali spelling that is the most prevalent form of the name used in contemporary writing. Antiquistik (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Beheading in IslamBeheading in jihadist terrorism – Based on feedback from the above discussion that generally weighed in against a broader 'beheading and terrorism' rescoping, I would like to suggest narrower rescoping of this article onto the use of beheading for terror by extremist jihadist groups in a context devoid of any legal backing, Islamic or otherwise (already the focus) - and separate from the use of beheading as a legally sanctioned form of capital punishment in internationally recognised modern nation states in the Muslim World: material now covered at Capital punishment in Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2022

  • (Discuss)Vukovar-Syrmia CountyVukovar-Srijem County – I'm initiating this formal discussion here in order to formalize earlier discussions, cf. #RfC on Proposal to rename article above. While there is some credence to using the historical anglicized title in the name of the historical region, the modern-day region of Vukovarsko-srijemska županija isn't really consistently named Vukovar-Syrmia County in the preponderance of relevant sources. There is some consistency to it, in relation to names of some of the other (but definitely not all) Croatian counties, and some inconsistency, primarily in relation to Srem District. We should have neutral editors examine this and decide what is the best course of action. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)KidneyHuman kidney – The Kidney article describes human kidneys with little bias to mammalian kidneys. A new article about vertebrate kidneys has been created to describe kidneys carefully without any bias towards human or mammals. Human anatomy must be split from other animals because combined articles are highly biased towards human and create misunderstandings or even give wrong information like bean-shaped kidneys in all vertebrates (fishes are vertebrates too). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Moura MassacreSiege and massacre of Moura – I propose to move the article to the title "Siege and massacre of Moura" to reflect to two interwoven aspects of this event: The military action, and the resulting mass murder. In regards to sources, one can easily find them by searching for "siege"+"Moura" etc. (instead of fixed terms such as "Siege of Moura" which rarely produce results for most modern battles). Anyway, here I will list some sources which describe the event as both a "siege" (or "siège" in French) as well as "massacre": *Reuters *New York Times" *CSIS *dw *cetri *rfi *La Presse I found all of these in a quick search, and did not even try to search for the various alternate spellings of Moura or other military terms such as "battle" or "clash". The issue with the title "Moura Massacre" is quite clear: This was not just mass murder, but also a military operation. The title "Siege and massacre of Moura" would cover both aspects. Applodion (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)That '90s Show → ? – The base name should be a disambiguation page to have both this and The Simpsons version pages listed on there as I don't think there is a primary topic between these two. Both moves involving this current title were not discussed and presumably it served as a redirect to That '90s Show (The Simpsons) before this sitcom had it's article in this current title. Let's discuss which is better. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bat Mitzvah massacreBat Mitzvah attack – The only reliable source that refers to this as a massacre is the Independent but only in the headline and not in the article body and headlines are not a reliable source per WP:HEADLINES. Within the article body it is described as an attack and the the other source given in support of the naming also describes it as an attack. Thus reliable sources do not refer to this event as a massacre. An editor previously attempted this move in 2021 but was reverted as "undiscussed", so here is the required discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)4-14-4Soviet locomotive class AA20 – As there is only one locomotive class with a 4-14-4 wheel arrangement, and the article spends most of its time talking about that class, it makes sense to rename the article to specifically be about that class. Eldomtom2 (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21, 2022

  • (Discuss)Coda.ioCoda (document editor) – I have disclosed a WP:COI as I work in marketing at Coda. The current page name is the URL of the Coda website but is not how most reliable sources refer to the company or service. Most sources just call it Coda. Coda.io was most likely adopted because Wikipedia has more than two dozen pages on various topics that go by the name "Coda," so there is a palpable need to disambiguate. I suggest "Coda (document editor)," which is more consistent with how reliable sources generally refer to Coda. I'd also like to share a proposed expansion of the current page, to address the "expansion needed" tag and make other improvements, if anyone is willing to review it for potential bias as required by WP:COI. Brian.klein.1k (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)City of David (Silwan)Wadi Hilweh – This page was created as part of a content split from City of David (archaeological site). This article, as the lead lays out, is about the Wadi Hilweh area, which is where the City of David archaeological site is located. As I understand it, there is also some Israeli settlement in the area and efforts have been made to refer to the entire area as "City of David", but the sources attest that this is simple an attempted rebranding of the Palestinian village/neighborhood known as "Wadi Hilweh" - a name for which this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, unlike "City of David", for which the primary topic is, well, ultimately the historic city of Jerusalem, but in a modern sense the archaeological excavation and touristic national park. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)SocialbakersEmplifi – I work in marketing for Emplifi. Socialbakers was acquired by Astute Solutions in 2020[30] and the combined entity was renamed "Emplifi"[31][32]. Recent articles have adopted the new "Emplifi" name.[33] Forrester[34] uses the phrase "Socialbakers, now Emplifi," but states in the article that the company was still called Socialbakers when they did their review and the company name was changed just prior to publishing. I'd also like to share a proposed draft of an "Emplifi" page if the page is renamed. The current page is a WP:TNT situation. It is mostly uncited or cited to press releases and reads more like a product description from a product catalogue than an encyclopedic entry. JordanJulian19 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Shiori KutsunaShioli Kutsuna – This individual, an Australian and a native speaker of English, very clearly spells her name "Shioli". See https://www.instagram.com/shiolikutsuna/. All of her film credits spell her name as "Shioli". See the previous discussion for heaps of evidence that she's been billed as "Shioli" since the start of her career around 2010 and presumably was registered under this name at birth. MOS:Japan is basically irrelevant here. Blocsrich (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Phonograph recordVinyl recordWP:COMMONNAME, Vinyl records has around 3 to 4 times the amount of search results and articles as phonograph records does. I believe vinyl is mentioned much more in article titles as well. In terms of the records themselves and not the device that they are played on, vinyl has become the common parlance. Swordman97 talk to me 07:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)4-12-2Union Pacific 9000-series – As there is only one locomotive class with a 4-12-2 wheel arrangement, and the article spends most of its time talking about that class, it makes sense to rename the article to specifically be about that class. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 06:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)S.L. Benfica JuniorsS.L. Benfica (youth) – Although the article is mainly about Benfica's under-19 team, it also has information on the club's youth system. Moreover, "Benfica Juniors", a translation of "Juniores do Benfica", isn't common in the English media, unlike "Benfica U(-)19" or "Benfica under-19" (sub-19 in Portuguese). In addition, Benfica U19 play(s) in the UEFA Youth League, so it makes sense for the name of the article to use "youth". SLBedit (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 06:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2022

  • (Discuss)Commonwealth of Australia (US Corporation) → ? – As the article itself indicates, Australia is not a US corporation. It is registered with SEC as a foreign government. I am not sure what the new name should be (or whether this should be a separate article). Perhaps the content should be included as part of the SEC page or another page on Registration of foreign governments with SEC; or perhaps it should be renamed as Australia US Corporation Conspiracy Theory. Zhantongz (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 19:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Nasturtium (plant)Nasturtium (crucifer) – This article is about the genus Nasturtium (common name: watercress), but the problem is that nasturtium is the common name for members of the unrelated genus Tropaeolum. This article isn't the primary topic (see e.g. Wikinav), so a disambiguator is needed. The current choice – "(plant)" – won't do because the other nasturtiums are plants too. For the 16 years until last week, the title used to have "(genus)", which may appear better as the term is the scientific name of only this genus, but the other topic, Tropaeolum, also constitutes a genus, so that's not precise enough. I'm proposing "(crucifer)", using what I hope is the still-not-obsolete common term for members of this family, but there's a second option: to go directly for the name of the family: Nasturtium (Brassicaceae). – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Possibly incomplete requests

References


See also