Trichome

thcscience_admin

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

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

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

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

  • Yolŋu → Yolngu (currently a redirect back to Yolŋu) (move · discuss) – The special character was added to the title without discussion. Zacwill (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template must be substituted. Replace {{RMassist ...}} with {{subst:RMassist ...}}.

Contested technical requests

  • Catalan cinema → Cinema of Catalonia (currently a redirect back to Catalan cinema) (move · discuss) – WP:TITLECON. The article defines it as the cinema of Catalonia, including films in Catalan and Spanish. That means 'Catalan' refers to Catalonia, not the Catalan language, and excludes Valencia, the Baleares and Andorra. Any hypothetical article about films in Catalan should be named "Catalan-language cinema" or somesuch. NLeeuw (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disagreed at some of the CFD discussions before, but I don't understand why this is even a problem. So what? As already pointed out, the lede clarifies the scope. If there's ever a separate article on Catalan-language cinema exclusively (unlikely), there might be an ambiguity argument, but there isn't. That some "Catalan cinema" is in Castilian (/English / French / whatever) isn't "bad" or a problem. SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft:The Smurf Movie → The Smurf Movie (currently a redirect instead to The Smurfs in film) (move · discuss) – Since the rest of the cast was announced at Cinemacon, I believe it's the right time to move this draft into article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZX2006XZ: Per WP:NFF, the guideline is to wait until reliable sources show that "the final animation frames are actively being drawn or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." The draft includes a banner requesting not to publish it until then. SilverLocust 💬 12:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that's what the notice says. However, I have noticed that when it comes to animated film articles, they are moved from draft to article mainspace when the entire cast was revealed, or if the film is in post-production. Examples include The Wild Robot (moved to articlespace when cast was announced this March), Wish (moved to articlespace when confirmed in post-production last year in April), and The Garfield Movie (moved to articlespace when entire cast was announced in August 2022).
    So with these examples that I listed in mind, I figure that Draft:The Smurf Movie should be moved to article mainspace. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust You can also check the move log for all three of the films I mentioned. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-production means that final animation-rendering/voice-recording has started (or finished). So two of those three examples are consistent with the guideline, WP:NFF. As to Garfield, the reason for the move was not explained, and it may have been too soon. (The mover presumably was not aware of the guideline.) One example of a guideline silently being disregarded doesn't change the guideline. SilverLocust 💬 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust Fair point. However, post-production in an animated film is when music is being scored and the marketing has commenced, just like a live-action film. The actual production of an animated film occurs when voice recording and animation occur. With that being said, I do believe that The Smurf Movie should still be moved to main article. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballysheil, County Down → Ballysheil (move · discuss) – No other article exists for this target former DAB title for now; it redirects to the current title anyway. Intrisit (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the change to a primary topic at Ballysheil, to reinstate the disambiguation page. Not sure WP:PRIMARYRED really applies here, there doesn't seem to be a primary topic among the tiny hamlets concerned.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's good you did it, since it looked confusing to me at first glance and that led me to list this here in the first place in the spirit of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. But isn't there any rule that states something like; No DAB page should contain redlinks, despite those redlinked entries having promising article stuffings in them. I think that's why the user cited WP:PRIMARYRED, because of the aforementioned sort-of rule. If anything at all, it's why I did what I did. Intrisit (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well no, actually PRIMARYRED says pretty much the opposite of that. "the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic nor is there automatically no primary topic". In this case, it had been deemed until recently that there was no primary topic between the Co. Down place and the Co. Offaly place, and that seems correct to me. So the dab page should occupy the base title as it would anywhere else.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @R'n'B: to give clarity of replacing promising DAB titles with more red links than blue links. It's unrelated to this request so I don't list such requests again. Intrisit (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the question is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't any question – it's a statement I want to inquire from you so I can de-list this entry. I was going to do so on your talk page out of curiosity, but I wanted to try listing supposed unnecessary DAB titles with "(disambiguation)" for G14 deletions and unnecessary DAB qualifier entries like this one, extracted from your contribs page, at RMTR for re-targeting before that. At first, I got confused seeing you refactor supposed/purported DAB titles to straight article redirects, with one being "no other uses found", with "Ballyrory, County Londonderry" (now at Ballyrory) and Ballintemple, Cork (now at Ballintemple (which was itself a former DAB title before a G14 deletion)) the examples I'm citing. As much as you're helping out on DAB matters, this felt odd to me, hence and thus the inquiry, not question. Still don't get it?! Reply back! Intrisit (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, at some point in the past there was a Ballyrory disambiguation page that that hatnote pointed to; but it had been changed into a redirect to the article about "Ballyrory, County Londonderry" by another user. So the hatnote no longer made sense, and that's why I removed it. At some point after I did that (actually, just a couple of hours ago), Amakuru restored the disambiguation page at Ballyrory (disambiguation), so now a hatnote might again be appropriate. Of course, the other question raised by this discussion is whether the red links belong on the disambiguation pages, which should be addressed using the standards at WP:DABREDLINK. (As noted above, we had one user who liked to cite WP:PRIMARYRED as the reason for eliminating dab pages that contained only one blue link, but that's not the applicable guideline.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) → Symphony No. 104 (currently a redirect back to Symphony No. 104 (Haydn)) (move · discuss) – WP:PRECISE Okmrman (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is uncontroversial. All symphonies at Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn have (Haydn) after them, and this is de facto the naming convention for all such musical pieces, to include the composer in the name, even in cases where it isn't actually ambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, per WP:NCM, "generic compositions with a generic article title are always disambiguated by catalogue number and/or the name of the composer". This should not be moved, well-established naming convention. 162 etc. (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

@BilledMammal I'm reading the RM as "Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The only consensus for a move here is WP:NOYEAR." as Mike Selinker wrote in the close. I'm also seeing that the page title has never been at your proposed title. Forgive my confusion at this request, but my reading of the move logs is that it was at some form of "bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" before the move warring started. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protected because of move warring, admin needed anyways. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this edit - before the disputed moves began it was at "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". Per the consensus in the RM, the "2024" should be removed, and so the title the article should be at is "Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus". BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to make this move, as I think BM is correct about the order of events. The original move from 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus was indeed an undiscussed WP:RMUM. What should have happened is that the undiscussed move was simply reverted and then a fresh RM started from the original title. But that didn't happen. Nonetheless, if the close at the RM was indeed no consensus, then other than the decision to remove the year, reverting to the original title but minus the year seems like the correct outcome. So as a neutral admin with no particular opinion on this title, I will make this move unless there's a good reason not to, per established practice. But before I do so, courtesy pings to @El C: and @Mike Selinker: as the page protector and the RM closer, for opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me, Amakuru, so feel free to do whatever. I just move-protected alongside creating the edit notice. But I saw that the latest move summary read:
08:27, 14 April 2024 Iskandar323 (talk contribs block) moved protection settings from Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus (Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus moved to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): – and also in direct violation of the recent consensus atRM)
That's why I took no additional action. But I admit to not have looked too deeply into it and sort of took the veracity of that move summary on faith. El_C 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sequence of events leading to that move and the revert involved one editor asking about changing the title, getting a response from a single IP, and then moving it themselves, which occurred after the RM was closed and the page was moved by Mike Selinker --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since no objections raised from El C or Mike, this has been  Done. This is procedural given that the only consensus in the recent RM was for removing the year, thus the page has been moved back to its original title, but without the year. All future moves should go through an RM discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has now been queried by Novem Linguae with a request to self-revert so I've done that. This has really become a hot mess, and we'll need the RM closer to come in and clarify for us.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nothing personal, my concerns were procedural. I just didn't feel very comfortable having RM/TR set aside a bolded RM close on a sysop-protected page. I think BilledMammal should consider opening an RM for Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus as a logical next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to wait to see what the closer says first; let’s get the article at the actual status quo title before muddying the waters further. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

Shortcut

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

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

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 16 April 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 16 April 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 16 April 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 16 April 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024‎ (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 16 April 2024

– why Example (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 16 April 2024

– why Example (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 80 discussions have been relisted.

April 16, 2024

  • (Discuss) – List of NBCUniversal television programs → List of Comcast television programs – This article lists shows produced by Sky Studios (and it's subsidiaries), which is not part of NBCUniversal but rather part of Sky Group, another company owned by Comcast. Additionally, Sky has its own section in the article with other companies that are owned by NBCU, which is misleading and confusing as it can make people assume it's part of NBCU. It would be more suitable if most of the sections were put into an NBCU section, which would exist with the Sky section. Inpops (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Reification (linguistics) → ? – Given the mentions of tooling and synonym discovery I think the content of this page was already more in the realm of natural language processing than linguistics. Consider merging the bottom part with semantic parsing. Sean Lewis Bethard (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Orlando (disambiguation) → Orlando – I realise that this was discussed before in 2016, but consensus may have changed. A recent discussion at Talk:Orlando, Florida showed no consensus that this is the primary topic. I would put forward two reasons. Firstly, the sheer number of entries on this page means that we should be cautious about deciding that there is a primary topic. Secondly, some people argued that the Florida city is widely known outside the USA because it attracts a large number of tourists as the location of Disney World. However, speaking as a European who has never visited the USA, the extent to which US cities are widely known elsewhere is not necessarily a function of the number of tourists, it's not like e.g. Chicago or Los Angeles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Diane O'Connor → Diane Hutchinson – Diane has now been credited as "Hutchinson" for the past 1- years - longer than O'Connor. She is no longer called "O'Connor" in the show, and more importantly, reliable sources list her using "Hutchinson", indicating that it is her WP:COMMONNAME. Searching "O'Connor" does not get as many results as Hutchinson, so I recommend this move. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Charlotte Drake → ? – Charlotte has never been credited as Charlotte Drake - she used it once as an alias in a flashback in the final episode, but nothing more - other characters have not even referenced to her as that throughout the show's duration. Furthermore, her WP:COMMONNAME is either Charlotte DiLaurentis or Cece Drake. I hence propose a move to one of these. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – I Am... (Beyoncé tour) → I Am... World Tour – This request is to restore the former name of the page. The previous move was closed under a quintaessential example of why supervoting is inappropriate and why Wikipedia is built upon consensus and not a polling democracy. The argument provided by the closer, @BilledMammal:, reads as follows: Consensus to move per WP:PRECISION; the current title is ambiguous. Ambiguity was never a reason provided for the move by itself; the argument was "There are multiple albums by multiple artists called I Am which could be easily confused as being the subject of this tour", which is not a valid argument to move a page. The tour is not a subsection of an album to argue such thing. Furthermore, being ambiguous is not a reason to move pages mainly because the titling criteria is not a set of imposed rules. The closing didn't address the arguments provided by either side and it never explained where the consensus arised. Additionally, it was never demonstrated that the official name is the WP:COMMONAME, why we should follow an WP:OFFICIALNAME, why WP:SMALLDETAILS is not applicable, why WP:NATURAL is not applicable, and since the page was moved and the redirects corrected, exactly where is the ambiguity in the title, since the Lewis tour has not improved its views caused by the alleged ambiguity. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2024

  • (Discuss) – 2023 Georgian protests → 2023–2024 Georgian protests – The protests have been restarted after the practically the same law was reinstroduced into the Parliament. All sides are same and the matter of protests is still the same, so it is basically a same thing and there is no point to write a new article. The protests are expected to continue so this article should be moved to 2023–2024 Georgian protests page 38.51.157.23 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – November Uprising (Lviv, 1918) → November act – per all languages that have an article on this. * The article suggests that there was uprising in Lviv, while in reality, the Ukrainians took the city without a fight and disarmed Austrian soldiers. * The article characterizes the Ukrainian capture of the city as an uprising. However, shortly thereafter, the Poles also rose up against the Ukrainians, which could also be described as an uprising. Rather then the article being named "November Uprising (Lviv,1918)" the name should get redirected to Battle of Lemberg (1918) . Olek Novy (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary → Tbilisi Theological Seminary – The institution's own website uses uses Tbilisi Theological Academy and Seminary. Most sources seem to use "Theological" (see Google books for "Tiflis Theological Seminary", or high-quality sources like Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam (which inexplicably talks about Christian seminaries in Tiflis in some detail! Available on the Wikipedia library if you want to check.). More generally, "Spiritual" is an awkward, literal translation that isn't that accurate to idiomatic English usage. It's a seminary for learning theology, not a monastery. There are a few sources that use "Spiritual" in GBooks ([2]), but they drop off the front page quickly from ~5 or so hits, and many are books written in the past decade when the Wikipedia article was at "spiritual" and may have simply trusted the Wikipedia usage. One complication is that the institution is most notable when the city was known as "Tiflis" in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the article was originally created under the "Tiflis" name in 2013. Given that there is a successor institution, it seems reasonable to use the modern name of the successor institution, though, even if there's fewer sources on the contemporary era. But I wouldn't be totally opposed to "Tiflis Theological Seminary" as a backup option. SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – This Summer (Squeeze song) → This Summer – Since this just got kept at AfD, this is the next move. The other This Summer, the Alessia Cara EP, I found unquestionably non-notable and redirected a week ago. Since nobody's questioned that decision yet, and I still stand by it, it seems fair to call this PTOPIC. Target can either be deleted and converted to hatnotes or moved to This Summer (disambiguation). The latter might be preferable since there are two other entries in the see also section, though a hatnote for all three might not be unreasonable. I'm fine either way. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lee Jun-seok → Lee Junseok – Lee uses the name Lee Junseok in all official documents.His Harvard University graduate's name is also Junseok. Additionally, the revised Korean romanization system recommends not using spaces between given names. Ehgud2077 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel → ? – The previous discussion was on moving 'Strikes' to 'strike' version, and it was speedy closed by me as there is a speedy consensus on that matter. However, what had been raised in that discussion is which proposition to be used in the article title.  : The previous discussion was moving "Strikes" to "strikes", rather than to "strike", I believe? I mention this because there may be further strikes by Iran on Israel later in the year, and it's not clear whether this article would include those, or if they would get their own articles. I think clearest would be to include the full date, so this article is specifically about the missile and drone attack on the one day, which I think would be 14 April 2024 (starting in the early morning hours local time). Warren Dew (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nihon Shōgakkō fire → Japanese mission school fire – per WP:USEENGLISH, even in article it's stated 'English-language newspapers covering the incident in 1923 usually called it the Japanese mission school fire or the Buddhist mission fire.'. The article title appears to be just the school's old Japanese name given from the website with 'fire' added to it - there is no evidence of 'Nihon Shōgakkō fire' that doesn't appear to be WP:CIRCULAR, I also couldn't find any evidence of the presumable Japanese translation of the title. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Milyang Park clan → Miryang Park clan – Per WP:TITLECON & WP:COMMONNAME, the article name should be the Miryang Park clan. Other Korean clans from Miryang, such as the Miryang No clan and the Miryang Dang clan are also titled this way instead of the Milyang variant. The current article title seems to be at its current location based on it being an WP:OFFICIALNAME, however the example cited is based on the url of the Korean-language website of this clan. There are no other indicators on this website that contain the English term "Milyang Park". The term "Miryang Park" or its variants is also used by a variety of sources and appears to be the WP:COMMON NAME: The Korea Times [1][2], the Christian Science Monitor[3], this research paper from the Journal of People Plants and Environment [4], this research paper from the Korean Anthropology Review[5], and A History of Korea: From Antiquity to the Present [6]. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Convention Centre Precinct → Te Pae – As per the discussion above, there is a case for this article to be renamed. The question is: what should the new name be? You can read my contribution above and I have a slight preference for "Te Pae" as it's what The Press uses most commonly, and they would be the one who write about this facility most regularly. This name is also the most WP:PRECISE. That said, I won't mind if this lands on any of the longer name options. Schwede66 22:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muhammad al-Bukhari → Al-Bukhari – This is simply the most famous al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari even redirects here. This is common with Arabic nisbas where strictly speaking, there's a lot of people who share a portion of the fullest version of the name, so we just follow the WP:RS sources for the short form used. Such as his student, al-Tirmidhi (not Muhammad al-Tirmidhi), al-Tabari (not Muhammad al-Tabari), al-Nasa'i (not Ahmad al-Nasa'i) etc. "Bukhari" without the Arabic definite article can be a disambiguation, though al-Bukhari is clearly WP:COMMONNAME per this figure. Aqsian313 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – GDG (disambiguation) → GDG – There is nothing to suggest that Go, Diego, Go! is a primary topic. 2600:1006:B027:2F3F:4D5B:D91F:CDD0:F8B4 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cumnock (original) railway station → Old Cumnock railway station – I've been tidying up disambiguation for former railway stations in Scotland per WP:UKSTATIONDAB and I'm not 100% sure what the best solution is for these two stations. The first was a Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway station opened as Old Cumnock in 1850, renamed to Cumnock in 1955 and closed in 1965. The second was a Glasgow and South Western Railway station that was only ever known as Cumnock, opened in 1872 and closed in 1951. I feel the natural disambiguation (using Old Cumnock and Cumnock) works best as there was only a brief period where the first station was known as Cumnock and they had different names when they were both in operation. The other options for disambiguation don't really work either as they are both in the same town and they were both run by the same company as the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway became the Glasgow and South Western Railway shortly after the first station opened. The current naming pattern doesn't work with the policy so they will have to move, I don't know what the disambiguation for the second station should be though as their is also a Cumnock railway station in Australia and Cumnock railway station needs to be a dab page. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Postmodernism (international relations) → Poststructuralism (international relations) – The current (9th, 2023) edition of the only source cited in this stub discusses this topic under the heading of "poststructuralism", with "postmodernism" being mentioned only as a loose synonym in a box on p. 183. (In the absence of additional sources supporting this being a real sub-field of international relations, I would also support deletion rather than renaming. However this is outside my area of expertise.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ravi Gulati → Ravi Gulati (activist) – With all due respect, the EastEnders character is simply more well-known. When searched, the vast majority of the results are related to the fictional character, even on searches like "Ravi Gulati activist". This is also reflected in the "References" headings for both, with the real person having only three cited sources. In this case, Ravi Gulati (EastEnders) would also be a redirect. As a plan B, Ravi Gulati could be a disambiguation page, but I think is unnecessary as the character is significantly better documented. FishLoveHam (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – London Country South East → Kentish Bus – This is the common name used by the operator since 1987.[1] Considering the operator was founded in 1986 - the article lead references that, too - I don't think it makes a lot of sense to use an anachronistic name used for only one year as the page title. Hullian111 (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Mozambique boat disaster → ? – Mozambique is quite a big place. Surely we can get more specific. I am not familiar with the region, however, and will let more informed editors decide on a new name. Bremps... 03:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – USS Arizona → USS Arizona (disambiguation) – I believe that the USS Arizona sunk at Pearl Harbor is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under both criteria. As for usage, over the past 180 days, it's received over 89% of views: 265,274 vs. 20,481 for the modern ship, 8,432 for the DAB page, 1,469 for the Civil War ship, and 778 for the Neshaminy. Under long-term significance, the articles that could be titled USS Arizona consist of only US ships and there's no reason to expect that will change any time soon, and this Arizona is one of the most historically significant US ships of any name. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Direct Democracy Ireland → Liberty Republic – It has rebranded, and the Electoral Commission has proposed to change its registration. It doesn’t have the prominence of Renua, so the same issues don’t arise in terms of that rebranding. However, my caution is that the registration won’t take effect for these elections, so candidates will still appear on the ballot as DDI. I’d be inclined to call them Liberty Republic, but with an explanatory footnote, but worth a discussion before implementing any change to the article title. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 11, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Kalolaa-kumukoa → Kalola-a-Kumukoa – Inline with the few reliable sources on the subject. *In the source (Esther T. Mookini "Keopuolani: Sacred Wife, Queen Mother, 1778-1823", p. 10) used Kalolaakumukoa not Kalolaa-kumukoa, with a break in the line on the page. The hyphen is used to connect the two parts of the name. See the pdf Kalola-a-Kumukoa in some variation is used in: Kamakau's Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, p. 476; Edith Kawelohea McKinzie's Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers, Vol. 2, p. 13, Kapiikauinamoku's (Sammy Amalu) Story of Maui Royalty [The story of Maui royalty — Ulukau books link], and this newspaper article by Robert W. Wilcox [Robert Wilcox sounds off, 1898. | nupepa (nupepa-hawaii.com) link]. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jordan Walsh (basketball) → Jordan Walsh – The professional basketball player takes precedence over the soap opera character. The soap opera character doesn't even have its own page -- the "Jordan Walsh" page redirects to "List of Home and Away characters (2016)#Jordan Walsh". MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ecclesiastical polity → Church polity – Concision and recognizability. "Church" and "ecclesiastical" are exactly equivalent, but "church" is a more common term to the average user. According to Ngram, the two phrases are now roughly as common as one another, though "ecclesiastical" is more historically prevalent. Dirkwillems (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 10, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Top → Top (toy) – Granted, the toy is fairly important, but there are too many meanings of "top" (in clothing, in interpersonal relationships, math and physics) for this to be the primary topic of the term. If there was a primary topic by importance, I would contend that it would be the basic term of orientation, as distinguished from bottom, front, back, and sides. In this case, however, I think disambiguation is the best option. BD2412 T 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rasna → Rasna (drink) – I had disambiguated this recently, and Talk:Rasna (disambiguation) contains a pretty good explanation based on data on why there is no primary topic by usage. User Fram reverted this move now, so here's a formal RM to gather more community input. Fundamentally, we do not have much reason to believe that the term "Rasna" is strongly associated by the average English reader with the drink made in India, and a simple disambiguation list is the easy and reliable solution here. India is certainly a huge English-speaking country, but this product does not appear to be well-known globally (at least according to the current article content). With regard to long-term significance, it's not clear that the drink would come even close to overshadowing the other homonyms, which include the Etruscan civilization, and half a dozen small settlements across Europe. Joy (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hamme → Hamme, Belgium – I had disambiguated this recently, and Talk:Hamme (disambiguation) contains a pretty good explanation based on data on why there is no primary topic by usage. User Fram reverted this move now, just as I was typing the most recent reply in that discussion. I suppose it's better to have a formal RM to gather more community input. Fundamentally, we do not have much reason to believe that the term "Hamme" is strongly associated by the average English reader with the Belgian location, and a simple disambiguation list is the easy and reliable solution here. With regard to long-term significance, it's not clear that the town would come even close to overshadowing the other homonyms, which include a river in Germany and another settlement there. Joy (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nicaragua Canal → ? – As the opening sentence of this article puts it, "there is a long history of attempts to build a canal across Nicaragua to connect the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean", from as early as the 1500s to the most recent and hence most notable one in the 2010s. Currently, the general article is at "History of" and the specific one about the 2010s project at "Nicaragua Canal". Each has a section summarizing the other, Nicaragua Canal § History and History of the Nicaragua Canal § HKND project (2010–present), with {{main}} hatnote crosslinks. This likely made sense when said project was active and there was reason to expect it to result in an actual canal, which would obviously have been vastly more notable than any mere plan to build one. But by the end of that decade, the project had been essentially abandoned, and I don't think it makes sense any longer. "Nicaragua Canal" has about 200 incoming article links ([8]), of which I surveyed the first 20. The result is pretty much an even split between links that should indeed go to the 2010s project, and links that should go to the general page, or in some cases ideally one of its sections about earlier specific projects. But it's more confusing to follow a link to an article that's about the wrong specific thing than to an article that's too general, especially when that specific article has an unspecific title. So a switch would clarify the situation, IMO. The most obvious choice for a new title for the specific article is "Nicaraguan Canal and Development Project", per its opening sentence - though something that includes a date, as the "HKND project (2010–present)" section title does, might be more informative, so I left that open. - 2A02:560:58C3:0:B0B9:6993:EC37:F849 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – O Mur Apunar Dekh → O Mur Apunar Dex – Dekh means to look, which is not the correct word. The correct word is country, which is either Dex in Assamese phonetics, or Desh in generic Indian transcription Chaipau (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Computer simulation → Computer model – "Computer simulation" is a much more broad term than what appears to be the content of this article, which is primarily about modeling things like weather phenomena and other natural systems. It might need to become a DAB page, if not a separate broad concept article to "simulation". Right now, though "computer model" or "computer modeling" is the more common term for what is being described here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rosamund (wife of Alboin) → Rosamund (Gepid) – This was this article's title when it was created. We tend to regard it as inappropriate for women to be defined by their husbands; this is particularly valid in her case, since he raped her and then she tried to poison him. "Gepid", the name of the people she came from, is a perfectly reasonable way of describing her. PatGallacher (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9, 2024

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Unge Ferrari → Stig Brenner – He changed his artist name from "Unge Ferrari" to "Stig Brenner" in 2020. The Norwegian article was moved in 2022, and the German article also uses his newer artist name. 12u (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pedro Pagés → ? – "Pedro Pagés" is currently the title of a biographical article of a guy who played two seasons in the major Negro Leagues and does not appear to meet the notability criteria for an article. (Historians don't even know when the guy died). He's certainly less notable than the current Pedro Pagés. If that article is even kept, it should be moved to "Pedro Pagés (outfielder)" and this article moved to "Pedro Pagés." Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise – Requesting move of these articles per WP:COMMONNAME. I will begin my argument with ngrams, even though I find them largely overcrowded by noise. Please see [17] [18] [19] [20] Moving beyond ngrams, my argument revolves around the English literature that focuses on the family, the era of the Italian Wars, and the era French Wars of Religion, both areas of which they played a central role in and are therefore not an incidental mention in. Stuart Carroll (2011) Martyr's and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe, is the most recent English language biography of the family - it refers to the second duke of Guise as François, his son the third duke as Henri and the fifth duke of Guise as Henri II (also the seventh duke of Guise as François-Joseph though that Wikipedia article is already at François-Joseph, so does not require changing.) The other recent English book which discusses them in the title is Mark Konnert's (2006) Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595) - it refers to François, and Henri. I will now briefly survey English academics who have written on this area in the last couple of decades, and their various positions on the names. Gould (2006) = François; Roelker (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri; Roelker (1996) = François, Henri; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François, Spangler (2016) = Henri Tingle (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri Holt (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name. sovietblobfish (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Strands → Strands (video game) – The second strand-type game? All joking aside, I do not think this is the primary topic for "strands" because there is also the type of beach/shoreline, swamp, and DNA strands, which can be referred to in the plural and aren't just proper names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Joint Light Tactical Vehicle → Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition – There are basically two extremely similar articles about the JLTV. Actually three. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle resembles an article about the development program, while Oshkosh L-ATV is about the JLTV selected for production. There is enough content for two articles, but I would guess that most people searching for "JLTV" would expect to find an article about the production vehicle than the competition that produced it. Background: "L-ATV" was the marketing name for the truck originally designed by Oshkosh for the JLTV program, which Oshkosh won in 2015. Presumably Oshkosh did not wish to tie the vehicle's success to the JLTV program, and so branded it as Each branch of the U.S. military calls it the "JLTV". Oshkosh usually refers to the L-ATV as the JLTV, although very occasionally Oshkosh will market a variant of the JLTV as an L-ATV on their own initiative. Here is a press release where Oshkosh announces the sale of "JLTVs", not "L-ATVs", to European countries. AM General will take over production of the JLTV from Oshkosh at the end of the year. They will be calling their version the JLTV A2. If this move is carried out there should be a section about the competition with a pointer to Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition. Schierbecker (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Omar Suleiman (politician) → Omar Suleiman – Clearly the main topic, longtime intelligence chief of Egypt and strongman of Mubarak regime. The other names in the disambiguation page dwarf in comparison; one activist with, if at all, only local significance, one wedding singer who got Youtube viral once and that's it, and some young entrepreneur, the redirect views show that no one is looking for his page, but are looking for the Egyptian Suleiman (1 vs 2). Plus the Egyptian Suleiman's page is more interlinked and crossreferenced within Wikipedia, further indicating the topic is much more significant than the others. (8 Wikipedia links for the entrepreneur and 299 for the Egyptian intelligience chief. (50, 78 for the two others with signs of the plague of paid editing for the activist to exaggerate significance, e.g. even linked by the page 1986 in the United States and LeBron James!) Absolutely do not understand how this was moved in the first place and passed as an uncontroversial move / technical request. This is the Omar Suleiman 99% of people would be looking to learn about. A note at the top of the page for other uses of Omar Suleiman amply fulfills the purpose of distinguishing. Yabroq (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Afon Tanat → River Tanat – Ngrams shows "River Tanat" is used more in English, therefore the WP:COMMONNAME. As used by CPAT[21], NRW[22], and UK Gov. A lot of search results seem to take after Wikipedia when searching the current name. Plus the current name is from Welsh, but not the apparent common Welsh name itself, which is Afon Tanad, so the current is neither the common Welsh or English name. DankJae 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflict → Polish–Ukrainian relations (1939–1947) – The article's author was unable to demonstrate the source basis for the existence of a Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in 1942-47; the very fact that he places the Polish anti-communist and pro-independence Freedom and Independence Association on the Ukrainian side demonstrates his poor grasp of the subject, but also, and above all, the inability to narrate the entire history solely through the optics of "ethnic conflict." For indeed, this is a misleading take. First, because it is difficult to define the actors. The Polish side is not homogeneous: there are many organizations, and the three main currents (the Home Army, the Nationalists and the Communists) had different attitudes toward the Ukrainian cause and did not pursue a uniform policy. Likewise, on the Ukrainian side, there is the OUN-M, OUN-B (and UPA), UCK collaborators, Bulbovets, Ukrainian Soviet partisans, Ukrainian SSR authorities, etc. Second, despite generally hostile relations, there were also periods of peace, attempts at agreement, and actual alliances. There is an entire book by Grzegorz Motyka and Rafał Wnuk on this subject: "Pany and rezuny. Cooperation of the AK-WiN and the UPA 1945-1947". Many Ukrainians served in the Polish army in 1939 and in the Polish armed forces in the west. Pavlo Shandruk cooperated with the Polish government in exile etc. These are things largely not currently described on Wikipedia. In the current situation, I see two choices: # due to the fact that the article is a translation from the Polish Wiki of the article under the title " Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting", we can move it under this title and change the scope to describe the skirmishes between the two partisan movement. # or, as I suggest, move it under the title I proposed and describe the whole of Polish-Ukrainian relations during the war. I believe that such an article would be valuable and would be a " container" tying together all the topics currently described in isolation (the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, the Hrubieszów revolution, the WiN-UPA alliance, etc.). Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Anarchist St. Imier International → Anti-Authoritarian International – In my experience, the term "Anti-Authoritarian International" appears to be the common name for this organisation in historical sources.[24] I rarely see it referred to as the "Anarchist International", as the term "anarchist" wasn't even formally adopted by members of the organisation until after it had already collapsed (see Graham 2019, p. 339). But we do know that they referred to themselves as "anti-authoritarians", in order to distance themselves from the Marxist International. Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Novogrudok → Navahrudak – Belarusian is the native language of Belarus, so the name should be transliterated from that native language. --W (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of Korean films of 1919–1948 → List of films produced in Korea under Japanese rule – I don't agree with the 1948 cutoff as a threshold. See Cinema of Korea; I think if anything 1945 would make more sense as a dividing line. The Korean Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia agrees with me (; ; both mean "[List of] films produced in Korea under Japanese rule"). My guess the original rationale for the 1948 line is that North Korea/South Korea were only officially established in 1948. But they de facto existed from 1945 to 1948, and commonly went by those names. I don't think their official establishment is such an important distinction for us to use such an arbitrary dividing line. 1947 and 1949 in North/South Korea were very similar. 1944 and 1946 were extremely different. Furthermore, I'd argue North and South Korean cinema were divided even just months after the 1945 division; North Korea's first film was the 1946 newsreel Our Construction, and thereafter its major films were basically all government-produced or approved. South Korean cinema was still largely produced by private citizens. If this move happens, I can do the rescope. I'll fit it into the formats of Lists of South Korean films and List of North Korean films. Just tag me once it's done. toobigtokale (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results, including overwhelming majority of RS! Sources provided earlier: The Guardian, BBC, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, a human rights journal, United Nations, and many scholarly works [32], [33]. New sources since then: Vice, The Lancet , The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Sage Journals, Middle East Eye, Reporters Without Borders, Carnegie, Democracy Now, Btselem, Dawn media. More sources since beginning of discussion: Forensic Architecture; CIA Factbook; BMC Psychology journal; and even the Jerusalem Post. Precedent: Only a minority of these RS say Great March of Return in quotes; my response to that counter argument is The Troubles example: they are still being referred to in quotes even 25 years later by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Also Kristallnacht [34]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – Henryk IV Probus → Henry Probus – Per WP:NCROY. "Use the most common, unambiguous name: Carl XVI Gustaf, Elizabeth II, Alfonso XII, Louis XIV, William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Mary, Queen of Scots, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." "Henry Probus" is more common than "Henryk Probus" "Henryk IV Probus" (the current title) and "Henry IV Probus" [35] UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fremantle Football Club → Fremantle Dockers – Discussing titles for the new Tasmanian team has me thinking about how our AFL clubs' articles are named – in my view, they're not up to scratch with modern titling policy. For context, of the 18 AFL clubs, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs currently use the "[location] [mascot]" combo, with the other 13 currently at "[location] Football Club". In my view, we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases, because it is more concise, recognisable and is used more often by our sources. Past justifications for using "[location] Football Club" have tended to rest on the idea that articles should use whatever the club's official name is, which is not necessarily true. Aside from this general rationale, some points specific to Fremantle: *Clubs that have acquired their current name after the 1980s – Sydney (relocated 1982), West Coast (entered 1987), Western Bulldogs (rebranded 1996), Gold Coast (entered 2011) and GWS (entered 2012) – all use "[location] [mascot]". The exception is Adelaide (entered 1991, title is "Adelaide Football Club") but their article also probably needs to be moved. Because Fremantle entered in 1995, using "[location] [mascot]" is especially consistent with the more recent clubs tending to use this format. *Many third-party sources use "Fremantle Dockers": PerthNow, Fox, The West, ZeroHanger, Nine, Seven, The Roar Sydney Morning Herald, ABC. I'm not exactly going to say "Fremantle Dockers" is the WP:COMMONNAME, because the actual COMMONNAME is probably just "Fremantle" or "the Dockers", but those names aren't suitable options. *Fremantle consistently use "Dockers" over "Football Club" in their own branding. It's on their logo, their social media accounts, their official app and so on. *"Dockers" is consistent across time. During their time in the AFL, Fremantle have never been known by a name other than the Dockers. *"Dockers" is consistent across teams. There's no reserves or AFLW team using a different name. And some other notes: *This move request is intended as a warm-up to gauge community sentiment and avoid changing too much at once, not to suggest Fremantle is the only club that needs their article moved. *If this move request succeeds, associated articles with "Fremantle Football Club" in their title (e.g. List of Fremantle Football Club players) should be moved to the equivalent title with "Fremantle Dockers". – Teratix ₵ 08:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shukan Shincho → Shūkan Shinchō – Having the macron in the name is the more correct translation of this Japanese magazine name to English. No standard title has been established in English so we should defer to the technically correct translation for the page title. DCsansei (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sarukhan, Bey of Magnesia → Saruhan – Already redirects here. Else, it can be Saruhan Bey or something similar, because this is the only person with the name on Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Magnesia is only a settlement, and he and his descendants ruled a region, more than just one town. So, "Magnesia" should definitely be removed in some way. Aintabli (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Edward V of England → Edward V – Background: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion. Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Frederik IX of Denmark → Frederik IX – He's the only monarch with this exact name, so we should move per WP:PRECISE, and the move will make the article title consistent with his daughter and now his grandson, whose name is spelled without the C. Векочел (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: A mistake on my part in saying Frederik IX was the only monarch with this name. He is the only king with this exact name. Векочел (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ New name, new colours Commercial Motor 16 May 1987 page 20

See also

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFM

    Leave a Reply