Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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; 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 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

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 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

Shortcuts

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, 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

Contested technical requests

Administrator needed

Apparent recreation (today) of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavika Sharma. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Difficult to know how bad the deleted version was, but the AfD was 4 years ago. Polyamorph (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was shorter and had just one ref (via Archive.org). One user relied on the source's dubious reliability in recommending deletion. There are now two more lead roles listed (in shows with articles), which would be relevant to WP:NACTOR. So not a WP:G4 situation. I think it should be unsalted and moved (with the option, of course, of nominating it at WP:AfD again). SilverLocust 💬 04:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would note that there is already a declined draft for the same topic awaiting review. Maliner (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't an issue for RM, either it needs to be speedily deleted or it needs to be moved to the base name and sent to AFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 28 October 2023" 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, 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

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 28 October 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 28 October 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 28 October 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 October 2023

– why Example (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 28 October 2023

– why Example (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. 45 discussions have been relisted.

October 28, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Porwad → Porwal – Porwal is the most common spelling used in surname by the community members, It is also the spelling used in Indian History Academia when referring to this community as is evident from the contents of the first reference of this article itself. The Google Ngram Viewer also affirms the much higher occurence of the term "Porwal" in contrast to "Porwad", so it is better to swap the article: Porwad with its redirect: Porwal. Wikigeek365 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 27, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Social Democratic Party (UK) → Social Democratic Party (UK, 1981–1988) – Per WP:INCDAB, if an incomplete title disambiguation is to be used, the article must be an overwhelmingly primary topic, with the standard for that being higher than that for determining a primary topic otherwise. Whilst there is a good argument for the 1981–88 party being the most notable one, the pageviews graph indicates that since 2018, the article on the 1990–present SDP has consistently had almost as many views as the article on the 1981–88 SDP. As a result, whilst the 1981–88 SDP is clearly more notable historically, I don't believe it meets the criteria for being the overwhelmingly primary topic enough to have incomplete disambiguation per WP:INCDAB (and WP:PDAB for more info). Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jungle Boy (wrestler) → Jack Perry – See above; typically, with a change of ring name/gimmick, we wait a while to see if it sticks in secondary sources, and then move per WP:NAMECHANGES. Since the change of gimmick, and especially since All In, Perry has been referred to primarily by his real name and not as "Jungle Boy" or "Jungle Boy Jack Perry". Additionally, he is the only person at Jack Perry with an article who is routinely referred to as such, so he is the primary topic by default. Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ernest Rutherford memorial → Statue of Ernest Rutherford – Per WP:VAMOS, which says, "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere). If the sculpture has a distinct common name, like the Bronze Horseman, that should be used." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Darshan (Indian religions) → Darshana – "Darshana" is the standard, recognized and common Sanskrit name in Indian religions. Darshan is an aberration in languages like Hindi, Marathi etc. Similar examples: Yog vs Yoga, Dharm vs Dharma. Wikiforhistory (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pitaya → Dragon fruit – As editors @Arminden:, @Alexandermoir: above noted, the phrase "dragon fruit" is distinctly more popular in english than "pitaya" is, though it's understandable why it was originally named that. Google ngrams shows that pitaya or pitahaya have remained consistently popular for the past several decades, while the term dragon fruit appeared meaningfully in the 1990s and grew explosively in popularity, surpassing both other terms in 2009, to the point where in 2023 it's nearly twice as popular as pitaya and pitahaya combined. When the article was created in 2004, pitaya and pitahaya were similarly popular, with dragon fruit holding a solid third place, but now in both american and british english, the dragon fruit holds a clear dominance in the modern day. I don't have a good citation for this, but looking around the internet, I would guess that pitaya and pitahaya have had their consistent popularity as a loan word from English-speaking Mexicans already familiar with its Spanish name, but upon being popularized (as a 'health food' or otherwise) in the 2000s in the anglosphere, most English speakers newly aware of the fruit chose the domestic term instead. And the rest is history, if fairly recent history. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kalgoorlie → Kalgoorlie-Boulder – Kalgoorlie is a colloquial shortening, and used in conversation, but the name, in line with places such as Wagga (Wagga-Wagga), Port (Port Macquarie) and others, should indicate the full name, as any natural person of the area would denote, that being Kalgoorlie-Boulder. This is the name referred to by the ABS, Federal, State, Local governments, and by most major sources on the matter. This has been discussed in the talk page, but is constantly rolled back without discussion. It seems there is an erroneous editor who thinks they know better with no explanation. This should be considered independant of their history on the name. Astroditer (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Arnold Díaz → Arnold Diaz – This may well be considered an uncontroversial technical request. The article was created as Arnold Diaz in March 2007 and, five months later, in August, unilaterally moved to Arnold Díaz. Subject, who died three days ago, was an American, born in New York City, with few, if any, references indicating his name as being accented. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 26, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Gordon Stephenson House → one40william – 4 out of the article's 5 sources are primarily about one40william rather than the Gordon Stephenson House, which is only a part of the one40william development. The infobox seems to already be about one40william rather than just the Gordon Stephenson House, judging by the external link and the cost listed there. There are many more sources out there about one40william, and I believe this article would be much better if it encompasses the whole development, rather than just the Gordon Stephenson House. Steelkamp (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Porsche Boxster/Cayman → Porsche Boxster and Cayman – The article makes it clear that these are two different cars, the Porsche Boxster and the Porsche Cayman. Per MOS:SLASH, a slash shouldn't be used in cases like this: avoid joining two words with a slash [...] because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording. Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Porsche 930 → Porsche 911 (930) – I request that the titling format of Wikipedia articles about Porsche car generations be changed from [make] [generation] to [make] [model] ([generation]). The problem with the current format used here is that these articles are titled as if it's actually the real model of the car, when it's a name for the generation of the car. For example, the Porsche 992 is still marketed as, and actually called, a 911.[2][3] By changing the titling to the latter form, it makes it clear that the article is about a generation of a car model, rather than it being ambiguous between whether it's a car model name or car generation. This naming change would also make these articles consistent with how Wikipedia articles about generations of other make and models of cars are named, e.g. the article for the fourth generation of the BMW 3 series is titled BMW 3 Series (E46) and not BMW E46. The 8th gen Honda Civic article is titled Honda Civic (eighth generation), not "Honda 8th generation" or "Honda FAx/FDx/FGx/..." or whatever.

References

  1. ^ ARCYBER US Army Cyber Command: an overview Fort Eisenhower on Facebook *U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence (27 Oct 2023) USAG Fort Eisenhower Re-naming Ceremony Youtube clip 1:25:20
  2. ^ https://www.topgear.com/long-term-car-reviews/porsche/911/2dr-pdk/report-8
  3. ^ https://www.porsche.com/international/models/911/
— AP 499D25 (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bonneville Locks and Dam → Bonneville Dam – Requesting a revert of a controversial move made twice by Xnatedawgx without a discussion or the courtesy to follow WP:PCM. "Bonneville Dam" is the common name for the complex and has over 1,000 hits on The Oregonian website compared to zero for "Bonneville Locks and Dam", which is itself an incorrect name. The official name for the complex, used by the Army Corps of Engineers, does not pluralize "Locks"; this name gets less than 50 hits from The Oregonian. SounderBruce 03:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 25, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Takehiko Yamashina → Prince Yamashina Takehiko – Japan's imperial family had a lot of cadet branches whose members were stripped of their titles after World War II. They started using names and surnames but the pages for all the heads of these deposed cadet branches use the pre-abolition styles, the only exceptions are these two former princes. Most of them had obscure private lives after their loss of titles so most sources focus on the periods of their lives when they were princes, moving these two pages would also create consistency with how the pages for their cousins are titled. Killuminator (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rhodesian Bush War → Second Chimurenga – Per the recent discussion, I believe it makes the most sense and fits best with Wikipedia policy to move the page to Second Chimurenga. Ngram shows that the Second Chimurenga is by far the most common term for the war and always has been. "Rhodesian Bush War" suggests a bias towards the colonizers, and it is also not the most common name for the conflict, thus it goes against WP:POVNAMING as well as WP:COMMONNAME. I believe some have suggested that "Second Chimurenga" is also biased, just towards the anti-imperialist force--even if this were the case, per WP:POVNAMING, this would still be acceptable as it is by far the most common name for the conflict. Sophie (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) → Mike Johnson – Given that he was just elected Speaker of the House, I would argue that this title should be simplified to simply "Mike Johnson", while the existing Michael Johnson disambig page should be renamed "Michael Johnson (disambiguation)", and the current "Mike Johnson" redirect to that disambiguation page should be removed, in favor of an {other uses} at the top of this article. Thoughts? Cpotisch (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Cpotisch (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – SGUL Teddy Bear Hospital → Teddy bear hospital – The recent AFD shows that this general topic is likely notable, while the current article is only about a specific (non-notable) instance of the topic. The move would allow this topic to be expanded, while the extraneous informaiton about this specific hospital can be pared down. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Timiș → Timiș (disambiguation) – As the main waterway of the Banat region and the eponym of, well, everything else on the dab page, the river is WP:PTOPIC for the title "Timiș". Everything else on the dab page is a partial title match, except for the much lesser tributary of Olt. In terms of pageviews, Timiș County receives more than the river, but is hardly referred to as bare "Timiș" in English, and would be hatnoted from "Timiș" anyway. No such user (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Johnny Beecher (ice hockey) → Johnny Beecher – Clearly fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Johnny Beecher" currently redirects to a jazz musician that used "Johnny Beecher" as a moniker for only two albums in 1962, neither of which are even notable enough to have their own standalone articles. Johnny Beecher the ice hockey player has easily become the more notable individual in this case; a simple Google search ought to show that. Aria1561 (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 24, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Hiroshi H. Miyamura → Hiroshi Miyamura – The current title doesn't quite make sense to me since adding an initial for his nickname, "Hershey", doesn't quite make sense to me. I believe it should either be named Hiroshi “Hershey” Miyamura or simply Hiroshi Miyamura. I don't have strong feelings either way but do feel it should be moved. Myasuda and Ooligan have both argued for one or the other, so I'm raising it here to get more visibility and hopefully get an agreement. DCsansei (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Religious Zionist Party → National Union–Tkuma – Like I said in the discussion above the name change happened only in the last three years of their time span, so don't think the name is actually representative for the whole party. During this time there were many splits and mergers starting with New Right and URWP and ending with the newly formed Mafdal–RZP. In fact "National Union–Tkuma" remained their legal name until the end. Braganza (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hate crimes related to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war → Violent crime in reaction to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war – Per several talk page discussions in the sections above this RM, this page needs moving to A) avoid the specific technically defined meaning of 'hate crime', which cannot really be assigned to events without a clear assessment of motives and/or prosecution as such in court (it is also defined differently in different countries), and B) distinguish itself from the scope of the violent crime committed within the course of the main conflict, which are war crimes, as these are covered elsewhere and this page was clearly specifically created to cover the events around the world outside of this. The move is also beneficial in terms of reducing the potential confusion and/or crossover in scope with the other prejudice-oriented pages that have been created in relation to the conflict, i.e.: Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Antisemitism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. It makes sense to cleanly distinguish violent crimes related to the conflict (that may or may not be based on prejudice, and for which the jury is still out) from the broader documentation of the rise in prejudice. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 23, 2023

  • (Discuss) – 2018–2019 Gaza border protests → Great March of Return – This has been discussed already in 2018 but I want to reopen the discussion as I believe the current naming goes against Wikipedia guidelines.  :WP:POVNAME: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use." Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results! Great March of Return name is used by overwhelming majority of reliable sources including 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 [27], [28]. The guidelines are clear and the evidence is overwhelming and this should not be a controversial move. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – AES Hawaii Power Plant → Barbers Point Power Plant – Hello, this power plant was actually called the Barbers Point Power Plant when it was operational. AES Hawaii is now solely comprised of renewable energy projects and having this non-operational plant be called the AES Hawaii Power Plant is misleading to the public. Respectfully requesting the name of this page to be changed to Barbers Point Power Plant, so that we may start a new page for the AES Hawaii Company and provide current information without confusion. For further proof, the attached New York Times articles states: "The station, the Barbers Point Power Plant near Kalaeloa, in southwest Oahu, provided more than 11 percent of the state’s electricity in 2021, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information." Feel free to contact me with any questions, thank you very much. Nina.santarpia (talk) 05:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2010 Japan–South Korea cyberwarfare → 2010 Japan–South Korea cyber conflict – Not sure what a good new title would be. I don't know if there's an appropriate WP:COMMONNAME; upon some quick searching it's hard to even find anything in English about this topic. But "cyberwarfare" seems like strong wording at the very least; I feel like that term is usually reserved for state actors, and this was all private citizens. The targets may have been part of the state, but if I DDOS'd the white house homepage right now I don't think people would call it "cyberwarfare". toobigtokale (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 03:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 22, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Never Be like You → Never Be Like You – MOS:TITLECAPS asks us to use lowercase for short prepositions "except when a significant majority of current, reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently capitalize, in the title of a specific work, a word that is frequently not a preposition, such as "Like" and "Past"". I'd say this is the case here, as I haven't been able to find a single reliable source that uses the lowercase "l" in the title of this song. 162 etc. (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – HCL Domino → ? – Due to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which sides more with 'Notes' rather than 'Domino'. (Looking at Google Trends also shows me that Notes has always had more searches with all three brands vs Domino). I propose either moving it to HCL Notes or have it as a compromise of HCL Notes and Domino. Chifonr (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Franz von Gruithuisen → Franz von Paula Gruithuisen – I'm proposing this title change for two reasons: # "Franz von Paula" is a full given name, like with Franz von Paula Schrank, and it is the name he himself uses in his publications (though usually in abbreviated forms like "Fr. v. P."). # I am doubtful that he was even a baron at all, so to include a "von" before his family name seems misleading. So far I have been unable to find a reliable source stating he was one (beware of citogenesis, I've seen a few sources online repeat English Wikipedia's claim he is a Baron, which is to be expected at this point since the "Baron" in the article's lead has been there since the article's creation in 2005), and so the current title "Franz von Gruithuisen" looks as if it misuses "von" as a nobility particle rather than as part of the given name "Franz von Paula"? It may be bad form to refer to other language Wikipedias, but it is curious that German Wikipedia in particular does not refer to him even as "Freiherr" (= baron). Oddly though, an image of his grave on Commons doesn't include "Paula" in his name, giving the name "Franz von Gruithuisen" as we use currently. Unless he was in fact a baron, It's possible this is a mistake, but I have no way to check this. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Paper Towns → Paper Towns (novel) – No primary topic for the title case version. Although I'm a supporter of WP:DIFFCAPS and having the original meaning as primary often it doesn't seem like there is a primary topic for this case. The novel has 4,609 views but the film has 14,127, the soundtrack has 104 and Phantom settlement has 2,166[[44]]. The lower case Paper towns could redirect to Phantom settlement like Cash machine or redirect to the DAB like Excess baggage does though it currently redirects to the novel it should probbaly be changed to a DAB or the settlement type even if the novel isn't moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 21, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Black company → Burakku kigyō – The 16th-century mercenary unit (Black Company) is the primary topic of the term black company. Moreover, in common English usage, the adjective black in this context usually means "relating or belonging to people with black or dark brown skin" (Cambridge Dictionary), so the literal translation of the word ("burakku kigyō" → "black company") doesn't really make sense due to the difference in nuance between the words black (in English) and burakku (in wasei-eigo). Many sources [45][46][47][48][49] agree that the literal translation of the word "burakku kigyō" to "black company" is misleading for this exact reason. The literal translation may be mentioned somewhere in the article, but it should not take precedence over the actual transliteration of the Japanese word in the article title (similar to how Haken (employment), Kaizen, Keiretsu, Shōtengai, and many other articles on Japanese business terms are titled). First Comet (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Generic Access Network → Wi-Fi Calling – WP:COMMONNAME? It is a quite well known term nowadays but it's unclear with the current page title. I think the technical parts (the protocol and how it works) at the top should just have its own section in this article. The title would be much better off and recognised as the common name. Chifonr (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes → 2010 incursion into Gaza – The incident was quite clearly a military incursion into Gaza, not mere "clashes", making the current WP:NCE title a complete misnomer, unnatural, inaccurate, and unrecognizable. "Clashes" is a term typically reserved for minor scuffles or exchanges, sometimes involving unarmed protestors - events far removed from the use of tanks and helicopters. With the new title, the month is not needed, as it appears to have been the only such incursion during that year. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — MaterialWorks 15:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) – Zionism, race and genetics → Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism – Better and more descriptive title that matches the article text and the sources more closely, and removes ambiguous and confusing reference to "genetics" which is being used to mean "eugenics" not "molecular genetics" or "Mendelian genetics" given the anachronism of pre-1930s race science. Present title implies an association between "Zionism" and "race and genetics," which can be problematic. Additionally, present title fails to relate the 3 free-floating concepts, whereas the new title exactly relates the racial conceptions of Jewish identity that are being discussed in Zionism as opposed to implying some problematic relation between "Zionism" and "race and genetics" (i.e., discredited race science/eugenics) Andre🚐 17:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – LGBT → LGBT (initialism) – I want to propose moving LGBT (disambiguation) to LGBT, linking to LGBT community, LGBT culture, and LGBT (initialism) (which would be this article after the move). I do not believe readers are looking for the history of LGBT as terminology when they are searching "LGBT". A simple Google News search of "LGBT" gives us articles on same-sex marriage, violence against LGBT people, and the experience of being LGBT; it does not give articles about usage and criticisms of the umbrella term itself. I don't believe the terminology is the primary topic of "LGBT". To wax poetic, "we are more than a label applied to us." This might be in the spirit of point 2 on WP:DICTIONARY. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wilhelm II, German Emperor → Wilhelm II – There is not any other person titled "Wilhelm II" except for this German emperor. Thus the comma is unnecessary. "William II" is arguable but "Wilhelm II" clearly refers to this German emperor/Prussian king and no other royal. Toptanazikov (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – National emblem of Turkey → Emblems of Turkey – Since this particular red crescent and star is not the emblem of Turkey, it is misleading to call it like this. This article has been misleading many people on the internet of Turkey having an emblem, which is not true. Emblems of Turkey may cover the proposed emblem (historical), emblems of ministries, and presidential seals. Note that various Turkish users here noted they haven't seen such emblem, etc. Beshogur (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sparebank → Savings banks in Norway – Just as we have Architecture of Italy and not Architettura, I don't see any reason to have an article on Norwegian savings banks listed under the Norwegian word for "savings bank". The article doesn't even use the term after the second sentence, other than in one name that includes it, it refers consistently to "savings banks". Instead of moving it myself, I've treated this as a potentially controversial for one reason: the first sentence suggests that this may be a particular kind of savings bank that exists in Norway distinct from other savings banks that also exist there. But as the remainder of the article addresses "savings banks", it appears to be about all of them, not just a subset of them, hence this proposal. Still, because of that small doubt that the first sentence created for me, I'm posting this move proposal for input from others. Largoplazo (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Trans woman → Trans women – While WP:PLURAL states that In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles, it lists Articles on groups or classes of specific things. as an exception, and groups of people are listed as examples (such as Hindus and Belgians). There is the precedent in articles such as Gay men, which is especially relevant as it follows the same format of "[Queer identity adjective] [gender]". And while articles like Woman, Man, etc are in the singular, for the aforementioned reason(s) they should also be plural, though that's subject for discussion in those respective articles. A Socialist Trans Girl 10:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Koryo-saram → Koryo Saram – WP:COMMONNAME per Google Ngram.[51] Some sources also use the capitalization Koryo saram, indicating a direct romanization from a foreign language. But our title should be the (more common) anglicized version per WP:ENG. English capitalizes proper names including names of peoples, nations, ethnocultural groups, etcetera.  —Michael Z. 05:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

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

The current Wikipedia time is:
12:35, Saturday, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1170902616"