Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Closing instructions

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: 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

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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

Are there any other topics known as "Lost Decades"? (Also, especially if it's plural, "Decades" should probably be lowercase.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator needed
Moving this to admin section as it will require either history merge (or speedy deletion) of The London into its current redirect target prior to making the move.Polyamorph (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

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" 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 7 July 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

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, 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 7 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 19:53, 7 July 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 7 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:53, 7 July 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 7 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 19:53, 7 July 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 7 July 2022

– why Example (talk) 19:53, 7 July 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 7 July 2022

– why Example (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2022 (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: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

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. 91 discussions have been relisted.

July 7, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Cesaro (wrestler) → Claudio Castagnoli – It's his real name, the name he has used everywhere except WWE, and we can't be married to the WWE name forever. Vjmlhds 12:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:00, 7 July 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)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – South Pole Group → South Pole (company) – Full disclosure: I work for South Pole. I am picking up on the move request from 8 November 2018. South Pole has not been known as "South Pole Group" for many years and in the meantime the company has grown significantly and is now one of the dominant players in the voluntary carbon market and in carbon finance more generally. This request is to keep the title of this page appropriately up to date and is not meant for marketing purposes. I agree with previous editors that South Pole the company is clearly not the primary use before the geographic South Pole (I sincerely hope the 2018 attempt at this change was done in error), but I respectfully request a reconsideration to go with South Pole (company) Mberg18 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sino–Soviet relations → China–Soviet Union relations – The last of such bilateral relations articles that uses the demonyms rather than the names of the countries. Sino and Soviet are not the names of the countries. It's China and Soviet Union. Had it changed at RM, but was changed over there back to Sino-Soviet since it needs a discussion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 6, 2022

  • (Discuss) – DM SAT → Dm sat – Name for use in press is unknown. Stylization of newline-separated text is not desirable for Wikipedia articles. 5.43.73.144 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shimon bar Yochai → Shimon ben Yochai – (Background: A previous discussion on this page led to a move to Simeon bar Yochai, which has apparently now been undone. A previous discussion of ben/bar ended without consensus.) Genuine Talmudic texts universally, without exception, refer to our subject as Shimon ben Yochai. The Steinsaltz edition of the Bavli incorrectly read "bar Yochai" in some places but, due to my efforts of a few hours ago, that has now been fixed. Our page on the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai also referred to the book as of "bar Yochai," even though it has never been called that, which I have fixed. This is a case of popular error occasioned by the forged Zohar which, in its pretense to have been composed by Aramaic-speaking sages, but without Palestinian Aramaic grammatical knowledge, referred to him in the wrong style, and it has sometimes broken into even scholastic spaces. Nonetheless it is obvious what his real name was, and the vast majority of scholastic references are aware of this. Ngram shows that despite the overwhelming popularity of "bar Yochai" among internet posts, the two are equally popular in books: here. A closer examination reveals that Kabbalistic titles refer to him as "bar Yochai" and wiki-reliable academic works, unless they are specifically referring to him in a Zoharic context, refer to him as "ben Yochai". GordonGlottal (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – John Weaver (historian) → J. R. H. Weaver – He was widely known by his initials, and it seems to be unclear whether his primary given name was John or Reginald (there are hits on Google for "John R. H. Weaver" and "J. Reginald H. Weaver", both far fewer than for JRH, and he seems to have been familiarly known as "Reggie Weaver". LookLook36 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – KBJ → KBJ (disambiguation) – I would like to move this article to KBJ (disambiguation) and change "KBJ" to a redirect to Ketanji Brown Jackson, and add a "KBJ redirects here" hatnote on her page pointing to the disambig page. Even looking at traffic statistics before her Supreme Court nomination, she had far more pageviews than the other topics linked here; now, as a sitting SC justice, this is very unlikely to change anytime soon. Ich (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – James Tracy (communication scholar) → James Tracy (conspiracy theorist) – James Tracy is primarily known for being a conspiracy theorist, not a communication scholar. The article itself dedicates only a single line to his credentials with remainder talking about his conspiracies and subsequent legal troubles. Accordingly it makes little sense to refer to him as communication scholar as it's not particularly enlightening as to his identity and not really what the article covers and addresses. Open to other suggestions as well. (Examples of other pages with conspiracy theorist as the descriptor: Cathy O'Brien, John Todd etc.) | MK17b | (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 5, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Glasgow ice cream wars → Ice cream wars – "Ice cream war" redirects here. As far as I know, there is no need to mention the city as there are no other instances of "ice cream wars", although I could be mistaken. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Hara, James E.; Cerretti, Pierfilippo; Pape, Thomas; Evenhuis, Neal L. (2011). "Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part II: Camillo Rondani" (PDF). Zootaxa. 3141: 1–268.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Carbunclo → Carbuncle (legendary animal) – "Carbunclo" is the Spanish name (or at least one of them), whereas "Carbuncle" is the English name. The page title should use the English name of the creature (although maintaining a redirect from the Spanish name would still be valuable). SnorlaxMonster 08:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Kapu (disambiguation) → Kapu – Kapu appears to be an important concept in Hawaiian culture, but it is not the primary topic for the term. Leaving aside the half a dozen minor topics with the name, there's Kapu (caste): a social group of India that hardly has less long-term significance and which gets almost four times the views [3].
    The only question is about the new title of the Hawaiian article: Kapu (concept)? Kapu (taboo)? Kapu (Hawaiian culture)? Maybe that decision would be easier if the article did a better job of making it clear what exactly it's about. – Uanfala (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – BE → Be – The discussion at Talk:Bé#Requested move 3 July 2022 brought attention to this page which was created on May 10, 2001, less than four months after Wikipedia's opening day. Since virtually every entry listed upon this disambiguation page is indicated as "Be", rather than "BE", there is no good reason to capitalize the "E". — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Air multiplier → Bladeless fan – My understanding is that "Air multiplier" is a trademarked marketing term for a particular brand's products. Google Advanced Search shows "Bladeless fan" being about eight times more common, and Google Ngram confirms that it is also more common in book sources. Google Scholar also confirms that it is a more common term in scholarly works. Although this type of fan is not really bladeless, they are commonly referred to as such, since they have no visible (or touchable) fan blades. The blades are hidden inside the chassis. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 18:30, 4 July 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)— Relisting. Judekkan (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dihya → Kahina – - it appears that this is the most common name used in reliable sources, eg Google scholar where I see "About 181 results" for the current name, about 133 for Al-Kahina and to my surprise,about 613 for Kahina - Kahina or Al-Kahina is also the most certain name we seem to have. Redirects of course for the rest where reasonable. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Medical abortion → Medication 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) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 3, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture → Demchok, 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) — Relisting. ~StyyxTalk? 18:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Osmanabad → Dharashiv – The name is officially changed by the government of Maharashtra recently. It is also an ancient name with a relatively secular and peaceful history than the last name. ShresthaShome.Ullas (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bloody Sunday (1972) → Bloody Sunday – The 1972 massacre appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'Bloody Sunday' by quite a margin: * It gets 3~4 times as many page views as the second most read article (the 1905 event) with recurring spikes to much more than that.[9] * Substantially more readers landing on the dab page open the article about the 1972 event than any other disambiguated article.[10] * Google Books seems to return only results about the 1972 massacre in the first few pages.[11] * Ngram Viewer shows a spike in 1972 for 'Bloody Sunday' to more than double the average for the previous decades.[12] * Google Scholar gives more mixed results, but still the 1972 event occurs twice as many times or more as the others in the first few pages.[13] * A plain Google search returns only four results other than the 1972 event (one of which is the film about the event).[14]
    Deeday-UK (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dyke March → Dyke march – The term "dyke march" is clearly not a proper noun, and the article should therefore be moved to "Dyke march". The language of the article itself clearly demonstrates that it is not a proper noun: Before the concept of a "(d)yke (m)arch" came to be... (the word a indicates that is is a common noun); A (d)yke (m)arch is a lesbian visibility and protest march... (if it were a proper noun, the article would read The Dyke March is a lesbian visibility and protest march...); and so on. Thrakkx (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Gamergate (harassment campaign) → Gamergate – There are two topics under the name "gamergate". According to Wikipedia Disambigation rules, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Therefore, this page should be renamed as simply gamergate and the disambiguation page should be removed. --Madame Necker (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 23rd Infantry Division (United States) → Americal Division – WP:COMMONNAME. Page was at Americal Division until it was moved without discussion in 2008. The official World War II history of the division, US Army sources, and even the official division reports overwhlemingly use the name Americal Division rather than its numerical designation. The division veterans organization is named Americal Division veterans. Wikipedia policy discourages use of the official name of a subject in cases where the official name is not the most common name of the subject, see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. However, given the use in official sources published by the division of Americal Division as its name, it is questionable whether 23rd Infantry Division even has dominance as the official name. For example, a newspapers.com search of American newspapers from 1968 to 1971 gives 44k hits for Americal Division and only 3k matches for 23rd Infantry Division. Press coverage of My Lai, which the division received the most coverage for, mostly does not even mention the numerical division of the unit and refers to it solely as Americal. This would seem to be overwhelming evidence that Americal Division was the common name during Vietnam despite the official numbering. Our article should be at the most common name for the unit regardless of an insistence on strictly adhering to official nomenclature even when the latter is relatively rarely used. Kges1901 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Don't Blame Me (song) → Don't Blame Me (1933 song) – Well, user BRG, today's your lucky day! About a month ago, someone created an article for Taylor Swift's 2017 song "Don't Blame Me" - originally a redirect. With this, it's clear the 1933 "Don't Blame Me" cannot retain the (song) disambiguator any more, because now we have two song articles with the same name - and thus no primary topic. Per WP:DABSONG (emphasis added by me): "if there is no defined performer of an old song (over 50 years), the lyricist(s) and/or the composer(s) are not well-recognized, or multiple notable performers that have covered it are better known than the original recording artist, the year of publication will be used." ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work     14:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sega 3D Classics Collection → Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives – This page is currently structured as a page for the game "Sega 3D Classics Collection", that happens to also cover "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" and "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives 3: Final Stage". I think it would be better structured as a page about the video game series "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" that covers all three equally, rather than emphasizing the only game with an English release so strongly. In that case, the title "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" would also be more appropriate, as this is common to the titles of all three games in the series. SnorlaxMonster 14:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Honeychurch → Honeychurch (band) – Honeychurch refers to a parish in Devon, England and a surname of the same name, which merits a disambiguation page. This questionable low-notability band whose article was created in 2006 by an account named after the band's founding member is not the primary topic. The article has an average of 3 daily pageviews and all Google Books, News and Scholar results pertain to the place name or surname. Οἶδα (talk) 10:00, 2 July 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) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dawson massacre → Dawson expedition – Per WP:NPOV; massacre is a contentious label that should generally be avoided unless it is the clear common name in reliable English language sources and that isn't the case here per ngrams. It also isn't a useful descriptive title, as it isn't likely to align to any of the various definitions of massacre; while the American commander did attempt to surrender at one point, in the fog of war both sides continued to fight. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2022 Kazakh unrest → 2022 Kazakhstani unrest – "Kazakh" is a misnomer in the context of this article. "Kazakhstani" refers to all citizens of Kazakhstan, regardless of ethnicity, while "Kazakh" refers only to ethnic Kazakhs.[1] These protests were not ethnic-based, as many non-Kazakhs participated in the protests. Many equivalent articles in other languages use "in Kazakhstan", but "2022 unrest in Kazakhstan" is not a common title format on the English Wikipedia.

References

  1. ^ Schneider, Johann F.; Larsen, Knud S.; Krumov, Krum; Vazow, Grigorii (2013). Advances in International Psychology: Research Approaches and Personal Dispositions, Socialization Processes and Organizational Behavior. Kassel university press GmbH. p. 164. ISBN 978-3-86219-454-4. Archived from the original on 27 February 2018.
– Yue🌙 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Larries → Larry Stylinson – It seems to me that the article is (or at least should be) about the theory itself and reasoning behind it, not the group of people believing it. Per WP:CRITERIA, "Larry Stylinson" is more recognizable, more natural (not Twitter lingo), and more precise (there are people named Larrie, but there's no one named Larry Stylinson). As far as I know, there aren't any other ship articles to point to for precedent or to stay consistent with - but for other conspiracy theory articles, the title is always the name of the theory, not the people who believe it. Not to mention that "Larries" is just a derivative form of "Larry Stylinson" anyway. We can obviously include the term "Larries" in the lead as well, but changing the title just makes more sense. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:47, 1 July 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)— Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Battle of the Siverskyi Donets → May 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)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vukovar-Syrmia County → Vukovar-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)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bat Mitzvah massacre → Bat 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) — Relisting. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term. I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fermented tea → Dark 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) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30, 2022

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) – Church of Singapore (Protestant Church) → Church of Singapore (Charismatic) – There are a number of Protestant Churches that have been called the "Church of Singapore" throughout history including the Methodist Church of Singapore, the Presbyterian Church of Singapore, and the Anglican Church of Singapore. The "Church of Singapore" in the article is notable as a Charismatic church/denomination in the country, and it gets mentioned as such in histories of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement. Jahaza (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy → 2022 Prophet remarks row – As mentioned towards the end of the previous 8 June move request discussion, and as per WP:CRITERIA, this topic already has a recognizable, natural, precise and concise descriptive title that is used widely in the sourcing. The exact phrase Prophet remarks row has 56,900 news hits (at the last count), compared to exactly 3 news hits for the title that the page was recently moved to. So commonplace is Prophet remarks row that even some non-English, non-Latin script articles are using the tag for search purposes, see: here. "2022 Prophet remarks row", with the date at the front, is meanwhile consistent with Wikipedia's more general event title formats. Flipping it around, I have not seen any good reasons for NOT using the terminology used most commonly by the referenced sources, or for sticking with a title clearly at odds with this terminology, which serves little purpose and could potentially sow confusion among prospective readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Moura Massacre → Siege 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) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kidney → Human 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) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Al-Aqsa Mosque → Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) – Disambiguation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, as the term refers to both the congregational mosque ("Jami'a" in Arabic) or the entire mosque compound ("Masjid" in Arabic, cognate with Temple Mount). For sources see the "Definition" section of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Socialbakers → Emplifi – I work in marketing for Emplifi. Socialbakers was acquired by Astute Solutions in 2020[20] and the combined entity was renamed "Emplifi"[21][22]. Recent articles have adopted the new "Emplifi" name.[23] Forrester[24] 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)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:46, 28 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) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Udaipur State → Kingdom of Mewar – A few days ago Sisodias of Mewar was merged here. That merge and expansion of the page has changed what the page is about. It is now about the Kingdom in its historical context and not just the state under Maratha and British. Because historically speaking, there was no state before the british arrived, this must be a kingdom. Also Mewar is a Common Name to include in the title and not Udaipur. See WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2023 Nigerian general election → 2023 Nigerian elections – I again request this move as the current title indicates that there is one central election on one day (like 2018 Pakistani and 2019 British election pages); however, there are dozens of different elections in Nigeria throughout 2023 (from February to at least November) making this page more comparable to the 2020 United States elections (especially as they are both presidential systems with a large number of disparate elections throughout the year). Also, as the component elections in this page already have unique pages, it is no longer like the 2019 page where there was no separate presidential election page. In accordance with other like pages, such as the 2022 Nigerian elections, I believe 2023 Nigerian elections is more accurate. When I brought this up last, it was clear that the user that moved this page is not familiar with the content of the page; when I requested it be moved back others seemingly understood why but stopped short of supporting and thus the inaccurate title stook. Watercheetah99 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cherbourg-Octeville → Cherbourg – 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) – 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes → 2022 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) – Aldobrandini Madonna → Garvagh 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) – Australian scrub python → Simalia 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 metal → Mittelalter 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]
  • (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]

Malformed requests

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:Requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"
  • Talk:Meraxes gigas – Pagename to be moved listed below template: [[]] does not match name in template: Meraxes gigas. – Page may have been moved to the requested title.

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.


See also

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220707222542/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves