Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Move requests)

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
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.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

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

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the 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

WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E applies. The article is about a murder case and its appeals. The case is notable but the alleged perpetrator is not. He would be unknown if he was not convicted of murdering his daughter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a move discussion should be required. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't he notable? How is this different from Rodney Reed, or Hank Skinner, or any of the hundreds of articles in Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by United States jurisdictions? 162 etc. (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One problem here is that the title "Robert Roberson case" may not match article naming conventions, though I am not sure if there is a standard in the Manual of Style. (The closest I can find is MOS:CONVICTEDFELON which has no decisive rule.) Possible precedents include Conviction of Michael Shields or Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Perhaps this article could be simply moved so the title parallels one of those. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible precedent is Parker–Hulme murder case. I have no objection to Robert Roberson murder case, although it seems vague about whether Roberson was the alleged murder victim or the alleged murderer. Other possibilities could be Murder conviction and appeals of Robert Roberson and the simpler Murder conviction of Robert Roberson. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest opening a full discussion on this since there are other singers with the name Jade, be it with or without their surname/family name. – robertsky (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea tbh. Among the bevy of other Jades on that given name article page, several of them are also singers. One should thoroughly check on AllMusic and/or Genius to be sure none of them ever went mononymously.
For the time being, until a full discussion occurs and/or consensus, w/e…what I'd recommend is, immediately following her birthdate in the lede, having it say "known mononymously as Jade" or words to that effect. That's fairly customary. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a spicy RM and is in no way uncontroversial. She has been known as her full name for her entire career except for the last few months when she's released, what, three songs? RachelTensions (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the closest "big" article example we have in a similar situation would be Brandy Norwood who is very widely known just as "Brandy" but also recognized as "Brandy Norwood". We leave her article at her full name because the last name serves as a natural disambiguation between all the other "Brandy" articles. There's been umpteen proposals over the years to move her to Brandy (singer) and they've all failed because it just doesn't make sense. RachelTensions (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole bunch of other schools part of NYU with all of their respective article titles also using the full "New York University x" (New York University Tisch School of the Arts, New York University College of Arts & Science, New York University Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University Stern School of Business, New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York University Institute of Fine Arts, New York University School of Law, New York University College of Dentistry, New York University School of Professional Studies, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, New York University Silver School of Social Work) in the title. So this should probably be a full WP:RM discussion for all of those together, rather than one being different to the others per our policy on WP:CONSISTENT article titles. Raladic (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect, with the alternate name being bolded in the lede as its "AKA ______" name would be sufficient. I concur with @Raladic that all of the NYU sub-colleges' article names need to retain consistency with one another. So if you're insisting upon this alteration, IMO, you're insisting upon this alteration for ALL of them. I'm sure that's not the one and only in which the school's online presence refers to NYU in short form to condense space and/or be less overwhelming. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having those two albums in a single article is awkward, especially because both made the charts and received their own pro reviews. The first might be better categorized as an original film score, while the second is a more traditional "songs used in the film" type of soundtrack. If each album is notable in its own right (and they appear to be), then each should have its own article. Consider an article split instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second the article splitting. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The separate albums already have incoming redirects, Judas and the Black Messiah (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) and Judas and the Black Messiah: The Inspired Album -- which would leave what to do with the current name -- redirecting back to Judas and the Black Messiah#Music and linking to the two new articles there would be the proper solution -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520 and Cinemaniac86: one of you want to open a split discussion on the talk page? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ModernDaySlavery See WP:CONCISE. C F A 💬 00:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mystyle48 Is there any discussions of this confusion you are saying occurred? It appears the article has existed since 2006 at the current title and you just created the new redirect. We prefer short titles per WP:CONCISE and use longer redirects unless there is a strong case for why the longer title is required. Raladic (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary topic grabs are often controversial. Nanyang, Henan, is a city of 10 million people. I wonder if there is some political agenda behind this request. The editor has few edits, which seem mostly related to the contested topic of Taiwan. (But the user is familiar enough with Wikipedia markup to use an unusual customized signature.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible the "?" is a character that our wiki won't render or our browsers won't display, I don't know what Mediawiki's limitations are, but that's not super relevant. I would second that this should be discussed given the context, just to make sure we don't have to move this multiple times and cause disruption or confusion. ASUKITE 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ordinary question mark – I checked the character code. I continue to doubt the user's constructiveness. The user's first edit was to say "As the username says, I won't tell u anything! Hahaha😈" and to put a big clown face and question mark on their user page. Their second edit was an RM request for Taiwan Area (which seems to have been appropriate, as it was successful after discussion). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The region stretches from Yunnan Province to Singapore (north to south) and from Myanmar (Burma) to Vietnam (west to east), while the city is only the city. Nanyang, Henan is not that well known in English context because people use Chinese more commonly when referring to it, while the region is referred more in English-speaking countries like Singapore and Malaysia. ?8 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's not a good idea to investigate the request originator instead of discussing the request itself. ?8 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is some political agenda behind this request. I'd avoid casting aspersions like this... just comment on the merits of the move. RachelTensions (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donttellu8 You can open a requested move discussion by clicking the "discuss" button above, filling in your rationale and clicking publish. The instructions for requesting multiple pages can be found at Template:Requested move#Multiple related move requests ASUKITE 15:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tstcikhthys1 Given that the DAB page appears to have people with either of the two spellings, this is definitely not uncontroversial. Recommend a full RM discussion. Raladic (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tazelaar Contesting as this likely needs a discussion to move forward. This wiki prefers English titles when possible, and we use the WP:COMMONNAME which is the name reported by majority of sources (again, preferably English sources, which are typically going to favor an English translation) - as for the translation, if the official translation is incorrect, it might be borderline editorializing if we try to correct it unless the correction we go with is also supported by majority of RS. At the very least, we would need to see sources or evidence of which title is the common name to move forward (and that would be most productive in a discussion where editors can bring forward opposing evidence that may have been missed.) ASUKITE 14:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Closed Limelike Curves The ANI should be closed before we move this, or we should have a discussion, given how complex the situation is compared to the types of moves we typically do here. (Also noting that while the ANI doesn't affect or reference this move in particular, it is a similar topic to what is being discussed presently) ASUKITE 15:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

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 25 October 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 25 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 25 October 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 October 2024

– why Example (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on 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. 54 discussions have been relisted.

October 25, 2024

  • (Discuss) – List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes → List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes – In reviewing the previous discussion on the list title, I noticed significant confusion and disorganization. So to review the previously proposed titles: * List of Native American heritage groups * List of unrecognized Indigenous nations * List of unrecognized Native American tribes * List of unrecognized tribes in the United States * List of corporations posing as Indigenous nations * List of corporations self-identifying as Indigenous nations * List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes * List of organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes * List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes * List of unrecognized organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes In summary, the proposed variations: * The main noun: groups, nations, tribes, organizations, corporations * The descriptor: "Indigenous", "Native American", "in the United States" * The qualifier: "posing as", "identifying as" "self-identifying as", "that self-identify as" "unrecognized", "heritage" Now the stated purpose of the move was WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE. These principles emphasize that titles should be no longer than necessary yet descriptive and precise enough to convey the topic clearly to those familiar with the subject matter. However, these principles weren't directly addressed in the discussion and appeared only as boilerplate guidance in the move dialog. Let's evaluate the proposals based on concision and precision: * Main noun: On the basis of concision, "groups" and "tribes" are the best options. In fact, it was noted that "groups" was less wordy. Yet instead an argument was made based on WP:CONSISTENCY, identifying WikiProject Organizations, which is not even a mainspace page. A search of mainspace shows that both groups and organizations are used, with about 736 group lists vs. 528 organization lists. As such, consistency, to the extent there is any when it is so close to 50/50, agrees with concision in using the shorter choice "groups". * Descriptor: While calling these groups "tribes" is controversial, labeling them as "self-identified Native American tribes" is also problematic. For example, the Cherokee Nation identifies itself as a tribe, but including it on this list would be inappropriate. Additionally, "Indigenous" raises broader issues related to colonialism. Descriptions limited to "United States" are more neutral, although not without controversy, as seen in discussions on topics like secessionists and the sovereign citizen movement, but currently those positions are considered WP:FRINGE so it seems safe to use. * Qualifier: "Heritage" is the most concise, as it doesn't require an "as" clause, but it was mentioned that some organizations claim Native American heritage without identifying as having tribal status. A title like "List of United States heritage groups" makes clear that this word does not capture the scope of the desired list. "Unrecognized" is clear and concise - in the previous discussion, it was left out as it made the title "slightly shorter and simpler", but I would argue it is necessary. "Identify" and "self-identify" are not precise enough to distinguish federally recognized tribes from unrecognized tribes. As for "posing", it seems clear it would be a separate list from the current one under discussion. Although, there was the statement that "reliable sources on legitimacy are not 'very scarce'. It really isn't 'muddy' if you're familiar with the field", so perhaps this list will split in the future into "list of legitimate unrecognized tribes" and "list of posers". So this leaves us with the words "groups", "tribes", "United States", and "unrecognized". Plug those through the title generator and... out comes "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes". This title seems clear, neutral, and concise in adherence with Wikipedia's guidelines. To compare lengths: * Previous: List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, 48 chars * Current: List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, 66 chars * Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States, 60 chars The proposed title is similar to the previous one but avoids the appearance of potential bias. In a similar discussion, it was determined that the title "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" was necessary over the shorter alternative "List of hate groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center" for clarity and neutrality. And the proposed title here is both more concise and precise than the current option. Other variations would be: * List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes, 76 chars * List of groups the United States does not recognize as tribes, 61 chars * List of groups unrecognized as tribes by the United States, 58 chars However, these alternatives are either longer or use awkward phrasing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neopanax colensoi → Pseudopanax colensoi – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA - overwhelming usage within recent scientific papers, despite mixed use in taxonomic databases. Without a clear scientific basis for a preference of one name over the other, MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES: that there is a clear consensus among New Zealand scientific sources for a clade of plants endemic to New Zealand. *Neopanax and Pseudopanax together form a clade. Currently there are three morphological forms of the species within this clade - two are always described as Pseudopanax, while one (the more basal form) is sometimes described as Neopanax and sometimes Pseudopanax. page 52 of this thesis has a useful graph showing phylogenetic relationships within the group. Neopanax was synonymised with Pseudopanax in the 20th century, re-established as a genus in 2004, but the justification of this was disputed in 2009. The distinction appears to be one based on conventions rather than a clear scientific justification (i.e. less based on whether or not Neopanax is a distinct clade within Pseudopanax, and more based on whether it's justified to use a different name for this clade, or to continue to use the pre-2004 convention). This issue was previously discussed at WikiProject Plants. *Different taxonomical databases use different preferred names. Pseudopanax is overwhelmingly used by New Zealand databases. **Pseudopanax preferred: NZ Flora, Biota of New Zealand, IUCN, iNaturalist, NZOR and NZTCS **Neopanax preferred: CoL, EoL, GBIF, IRMNG, NCBI, OTOL, POWO *Recent scientific sources outside of taxonomic databases overwhelmingly prefer Pseudopanax. Looking at Post-2020 Google Scholar results for species within the Neopanax clade:

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – Swedish Brother's Feud → ? – The current title is perhaps a partial translation of Den andra brödrastriden (no source is given), but as far as I know, the conflict doesn't have an established name. Since Wikipedia's scope is global and it covers all time periods, this short title seems somewhat weird. Also, it should be Swedish brothers' feud, with plural brothers and without capitalization, since it is not really a proper name but a descriptive phrase. I suggest two alternatives, between which I am quite undecided: * Conflict between Birger Magnusson and his brothers, based on the title of Jerker Rosén's dissertation "Striden mellan Birger Magnusson och hans bröder : studier i nordisk politisk historia 1302-1319". * Inter-Nordic conflict of 1302–1319, based on Sverre Bagge's article Aims and means in the inter‐Nordic conflicts 1302–1319 (I don't think the plural is absolutely necessary, and using it might suggest that the article is a list). The latter title would make the focus of the article a bit wider. This would help avoid duplicating content, since the strife between Magnussons is already covered in their biographies. However, going into detail about the power-play between different kingdoms (See Bagge's article) might be a distraction in the biographies, but could be discussed here. Sundberg 2010 calls this Kampen mellan Birger och hans bröder 1304–1310. Sundberg's time limits are explained by his focus on armed conflict. However, I think Rosén's and Bagge's temporal limits make more sense, since the political conflict already starts when Birger becomes of age 1302, and ends in 1319 to his deposition. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Shuham, Matt (2024-08-02). "'ELIMINATED': Israel Brags Of Killing Noted Al Jazeera Journalist In Gaza". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-04.
  • ^ "Israel Defense Force on X". Twitter. 1 August 2024. Archived from the original on 4 August 2024. Retrieved 12 August 2024.

    • 95.183.203.226 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Discuss) – Special Ops: Lioness → Lioness (American TV series) – The original title of Special Ops: Lioness from Paramount+ was Lioness. So an article named Lioness (American TV series) was created in Wikipedia. Then the marketing department of Paramount+ renamed it. However as part of it's season 2 renewal it was renamed once again back to Lioness. People new to this series may not know that it was previously known as Special Ops: Lioness, At this juncture when a person enters Lioness they are directed to a disambiguation page. There is no indication that Special Ops: Lioness is indeed what they are searching for. It's described as "...a spy thriller series (2023 onwards)". We could move the article back to Lioness (American TV series) or move it to Lioness ( TV series). An alternative solution would be to edit the disambiguation page description of Special Ops: Lioness from "...a spy thriller series (2023 onwards)" to "a 2023 spy thriller TV series renamed in 2024 to Lioness". I would argue that this would be just a clumsy excuse not to move it at all. KnighsTalker (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). knighstalker (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 24, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Man-eater → Man-eating animal – There are multiple equally primary meanings, namely cannibalism, femme fatales and Man-eating plant. Maneater is already a DAB page despite the two titles being essentially interchangeable. I propose this move given it is urgently needed and better than the alternative. The original title can then be redirected to the DAB page. While I personally oppose the slang term "man-eater" being used over "animal attack", the more scientific term for it, I think it's best not to rock the boat given the previous failed proposals and have something people should be able to agree on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Gun show loophole → Private sale of firearms in the United States – I have been reading the comments between a number of editors over the past few weeks and I have been engaged in the discussion around what to do with this GSL article name. At this point, the discussion clearly looks like a new title is needed and that the best neutral title is "Private sale of firearms in the United States" according to common usage and the aggregate of best reliable sources. Any other changes to the article can be dealt with separately, this discussion should just be over whether or not to re-title the article to "Private sale of firearms in the United States" instead of "Gun show loophole". Iljhgtn (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 23, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Hiawatha (train) → Hiawatha (Milwaukee Road train) – These paranthetical names aren't quite as clear and precise as they can be since multiple other trains have used these names throughout their history. The simple parenthetical "(train)" isn't really enough to distinguish these different trains from each other. The first article is solely about the multiple trains operated by the Milwaukee Road which predate the current Amtrak train along the corridor of the same name. The name could be changed to "trains" to indicate the multitude of different trains covered in the article. The Amtrak/Via Maple Leaf isn't the only named train with a termini in Toronto, especially the historical Lehigh Valley Railroad train, which also ran to New York City, albeit with a different alignment. The name of the article could also be changed to maybe "Amtrak/Via", but the train from my understanding is moreso grouped with Amtrak. The Amtrak Palmetto is the successor of the ACL train of the same name. The fourth article is about a completely unrelated historical ATSF train operating in California separate from the current Amtrak train. The Wolverine is also the name of a historical New York Central Railroad train. Nonetheless, I don't necessarily believe in these names as final as I want them to be subject to change, and not all of them need to be implemented. I will say that if we decide that the simple parenthetical of "(train)" is sufficient in describing the articles in question, then perhaps instead the article titles for the Amtrak Pere Marquette, Silver Star, and Valley Flyer could have "Amtrak" dropped from their parentheticals for naming consistency across all Amtrak train articles. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 22, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Wood Boulden → Wood Bouldin – All the sources I've consulted (including the FFV genealogy volumes I have not cited) spell his name "Bouldin" I came across this problem in 2020 during covid shutdowns but did not so anything about it. Tokyogirl placed a redirect, so I cannot just do the move. The original editor has not edited in a long time. And no one has done anything about this talk page. Jweaver28 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – EP → EP (disambiguation) – This will probably be an interesting discussion... proposing moving "EP" to "EP (disambiguation)", and then redirecting EP to Extended play for the following reason: WikiNav clickstream data shows that the majority of visitors to EP are intending to visit Extended play. Of the destination pages that WikiNav shows data on, Extended play receives 97% of the outgoing traffic. Almost all other destinations from EP receive such little click traffic that they are not detailed by WikiNav. That means that, while Extended play received 471 clicks from the disambiguation page in the month of September, any other article received less than 10. I could see maybe some arguments to keep EP where it is because of European Parliament, which is colloquially shortened to "EP", but the data doesn't support that people are commonly ending up at the "EP" disambiguation on Wikipedia and expecting to be at the article for European Parliament... again, less than 10 clicks. Interested to see how this plays out. RachelTensions (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Juan Fageda → Joan Fageda – His birth certificate may well say the Castilian name Juan and he would have been forced into that name for the first 40 years of his life, but personal preferences and modern sources strongly prefer the Catalan name Joan. Going by WP:OFFICIALNAME we would have William Clinton and Anthony Blair. Fageda's website is joanfageda.com and this letter on it is signed as Joan [13]. Third-party sources in Castilian are using Joan [14] even the conservative El Mundo [15] and the nationalist OKDiario [16] so this is not editorial Catalanism, something that the subject as a People's Party politician is exceedingly unlikely to support Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Quadrantal (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 21, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Fort Takapuna → Fort Takapuna O Peretu – I am proposing that the name is returned to Fort Takapuna O Peretu, in line with the naming conventions of Heritage New Zealand register for it as a category one historic place. [1]. This location and the structures upon it have been known by many names over the years, as can be seen from this New Zealand Herald article announcing the opening of the Department of Conservation Historic Reserve in 2000.[2] While O Peretu refers to the headland specifically, Fort Takapuna has been used to refer quite narrowly to the 1886 fort building and also broadly to the structures across the headland including the current Naval base that is not part of the historic reserve. Rather than removing O Peretu from the title, I propose including a section about the changing names of this location, its structures, and earlier histories of the headland. I would also like to note that O Peretu Fort Takapuna or Fort Takapuna O Peretu is being used increasingly frequently to refer to the reserve, e.g. [3] Thanks, Ewhite31 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Nationality law of North Macedonia → North Macedonian nationality law – All in line with WP:CONSISTENT, the page should be moved as it is the only page in Category:Nationality_law that does not follow the "Country-Adjective nationality law" format. After the name change in 2019, the Wikipedia community did the 2019-RFC and based on a long list of reliable sources approved on a wider scale, it decided to use the adjective "North Macedonian" for State-associated and other public entities. I quote the decision here:  ::# State-associated and other public entities: What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?  ::#: Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.  ::#: The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME. Therefore, according to the Consensus established in the RFC (and until there is a new RFC on a wider scale), the correct title for this page is "North Macedonian nationality law" because this is the format used for other countries as explicitly written in the conclusion of the RFC. The comment of the closing panel at the top of the 2019-RFC tells us: There is new consensus in this RfC that we have to accept as a community The page was moved to the current name on 23 February 2019 (immediately after the country was renamed to North Macedonia) but before the final decision of the 2019-RFC that was made on 11 April 2019. Therefore, the decision of the Wikipedia Community of the 2019-RFC was mistakenly not applied to this page. Open Free Eye (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Suga → Suga (musician) – The musician does not meet the criteria for determining primary topic per WP:PT1: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Looking at the list of articles in the "Suga may also refer to" section at Suga (disambiguation), the musician's article does not meet WP:PT1 because it is not clear that the usage of the term "Suga" to refer to the musician is more likely than any other single topic; in fact, Sean O'Malley (fighter), who is also commonly referred to as "Suga", seems to receive significantly (almost 3x) more monthly average pageviews than the musician: pageview stats In addition, as a common Japanese surname, there are at least 17 other articles that "Suga" could reasonably refer to, most notably former Japanese prime minister Yoshihide Suga. Clickstream data shows a not insignificant amount of people visit Suga (disambiguation) with the intention of continuing on to Yoshihide Suga. Clickstream stats Previous move history for this article shows:
      October 2021 proposal: Suga (rapper) → Suga - failed, no consensus
      July 2023 proposal: Suga (rapper) → Suga (musician) - successful
      August 2023 proposal: Suga (musician) → Suga - successful RachelTensions (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – John Reilly (actor, born 1934) → John Reilly (soap opera actor) – Year of birth is not preferable to this more natural modifier. According to WP:NCPDAB, failing a practical single qualifier, the disambiguator can be expanded with a second qualifier ... Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators, as readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it. Most of his obituaries introduce him as something like "veteran soap opera actor" or "longtime soap star". (I would alternatively support moving back to John Reilly (actor); the page was boldly moved to the current title in 2021, ostensibly to disambiguate from John C. Reilly, who is always credited with a middle initial.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Loss (comic) → Loss (meme) – The article itself says that the webcomic page "immediately" became an Internet meme. It is largely known due to its meme status rather than some manner of creative merit. The current disambiguation doesn't even match the subject, as "Loss" is not a comic in itself but only a page of a bigger webcomic. Even if not moved to meme it probably should be (webcomic page) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Point coloration → Points (coat color) – This article is about color markings in several different species. Though such markings are not created by the same genetic issues cross-species, such marking patterns are referred to by the same word "points" (plural, not singular). The original name, "Points (coat color)", is the most fitting name. The article was renamed to "Point coloration" around the time the article was predominantly about cats and other small animal species which exhibit colorations caused by acromelanism (with horses shoehorned into the article). However, other species aren't colored by acromelanism, don't particularly use the term "point coloration", but all refer to "points" when describing certain coat color schemes.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 20, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Feelie → Feelie (video games) – There is no clear primary topic between this and Feelie (Brave New World), upon which the name for this type of object was based. Full disclosure: I wrote the latter article just now, due to my suspicion that a notable topic had been usurped by this particular article, and indeed I discovered one. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's primary, though it might be, but putting a disambiguation page at the primary namespace is probably easier to agree on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 19, 2024

    • (Discuss) – Alex Albon → Alexander Albon – Hi all, I think there needs to be a discussion about the article name not being his WP:COMMONNAME. As much as his name can be shortened to Alex, it is not the name used on timing documents and official TV/media graphics. Legacy media seems pretty torn on which one to use—there is no clear preference—thus, I think the officially stated name should take precedent. This point has come up in numerous move requests before, and has been the defining point in many, most recently Andrea Kimi Antonelli. Mb2437 (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – List of Ferris wheels → List of tallest Ferris wheels – There is no list of all buildings or office centers, all amusement parks, etc., just as the idea of ​​including all Ferris wheels in the world in one list is absurd. I believe the article should be renamed, as the number of Ferris wheels in the world is absolutely huge, likely measured in thousands, and including all of them in a list is simply impossible! And not necessary, as there is no encyclopedic significance in all Ferris wheels ranging from 10-20 meters in height, from every small town, amusement park, or even shopping center... Perhaps the original idea of ​​the article was the TOP of the tallest Ferris wheels in the world, but then the title simply does not correspond to the content and the article needs to be renamed. The only, in my opinion, controversial point is what should be the threshold for including a wheel in the list. My opinion - definitely not less than 80 meters (possibly more - 90 or even 100), otherwise there will be too many wheels and it will be difficult to maintain the relevance of the article. As an argument, I would like to refer to the sale of 88-meter-high wheels on alibaba, which means that wheels of this height can be mass-produced and installed all over the world for a relatively low price for such a giant. Another example - I tried to find a source to confirm the Phnom Penh Eye wheel from Cambodia (from this article), 88 meters high, and found only one very questionable source, and it was not even possible to determine if such a wheel exists or not... Therefore, there is a corresponding problem with wheels up to 80 meters in height, while there are no such problems with wheels ranging from 90-100 meters in height. Aqob (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – List of people killed for being transgender → List of unlawfully killed transgender people – The current title was established after a prior discussion from a few years ago. But as has become clear, the standard established with it does not serve the encyclopedia as it has established an impossibly high threshold since few people committing murders go out of their way to outright say "yes they did this because they wanted to commit a hate crime murder" and as such, the encyclopedia loses on a lot of valuable cases that have been argued against inclusion on this unreasonable standard and has gutted this article. This proposed new title was brought up by the above discussion by @Funcrunch. Please see this and this comment for more context. So creating this RM discussion to change the criteria to unlawfully killed transgender people (and with it, the inclusion criteria). Raladic (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Protagonist (Persona 3) → Makoto Yuki – I understand that this request has been made a few times in the past, but in 2024 I think it's by now indisputable that the Persona 3 protagonist's name is Makoto Yuki. This is the default name in both recent ports of Persona 3 Portable and this year's Persona 3 Reload. Characters with customizable names like Cloud Strife and Byleth are titled by their canon names and even the Persona 4 protagonist is titled Yu Narukami despite having a different manga name. The existence of the female protagonist may raise an issue, but I think the protagonist can canonically be considered male given the fact that the female option was a later addition. The option is also absent from Reload and even the official Wikipedia page for Persona 3 refers to the protagonist with male pronouns. However, if we decide we want to acknowledge both we could have a dual title in the same boat as Alexios and Kassandra. Still, I'd discourage this since the female protagonist's default name in Portable is only used in the stage play otherwise. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    October 18, 2024

    Elapsed listings

    Shortcut
    The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.

    Backlog

    Shortcut
    Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
    • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – Directorate of Religious Affairs → Presidency of Religious Affairs – The current title seems its administrative division/unit. Suggested title it the current and original name of this organization[33]. Turkish Wikipedia also uses the suggested title here. The English Wikipedia also indicate Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı means Presidency of Religious Affairs. The official website also uses the suggested title. The original title was moved by a sock without discussion. Please see [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] The organisation history says, "By the Law 5634, published on 29.04.1950, “Diyanet İşleri Reisliği” (Directorate of Religious Affairs) was changed as “Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı” (Presidency of Religious Affairs)"[41] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – CBS Weekend → CBS WKND – This is the official branding for the block, this shouldn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines to use it on the title, using "CBS Weekend" for the title is disruptive to me in my opinion, and could cause confusion for other articles with similar titles in it, including CBS Weekend News, although some users in the previous move discussion said that "CBS Weekend" reads better to them, it's an unofficial branding and is disruptive to me to use it instead of "CBS WKND." 2603:6081:893D:13AC:7100:943E:5C15:68C0 (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly incomplete requests

    See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

    References

    References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
    1. ^ Vandergrift GW, Hessels AJ, Palaty J, Krogh ET, Gill CG (April 2018). "Paper spray mass spectrometry for the direct, semi-quantitative measurement of fentanyl and norfentanyl in complex matrices". Clinical Biochemistry. 54: 106–111. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.02.005. PMID 29432758.
    2. ^ "Fentanyl DrugFacts". National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1 June 2021. Archived from the original on 11 May 2023. Retrieved 20 February 2023.
    3. ^ "BAND III TRANSMITTING AERIAL FOR THE MOEL-Y-PARC V.U.F. TELEVISION STATION" (PDF). BBC. October 1966.
    4. ^ "Digital UK advises Granada TV viewers over Welsh channels problem". 2009-12-24. Archived from the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 2010-08-19.
    5. ^ "Table of Broadcasting Stations for Multiplex L" (PDF). Ofcom. 2019-03-27. Retrieved 2020-08-20.
    6. ^ "Trade and Industry Information, 700MHz Clearance Events, Wales Region" (PDF). Digital UK. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
    7. ^ "Trade and Industry Information, 700MHz Clearance Events, Wales Region" (PDF). Freeview. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
    8. ^ "700-plan-clearance.xlsx". Ofcom. Retrieved 21 October 2024.
    9. ^ "Freeview Detailed Coverage Checker". Freeview. Retrieved 21 October 2024.
    10. ^ "Business Rates Liabilities". Flintshire County Council. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
    11. ^ Lemire, Sarah (2024-03-11). "In a One-Sided Relationship? The Signs to Look Out For". www.today.com. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
    12. ^ Oliver, David. "What is a 'delusionship'? That made-up relationship in your head, explained". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
    13. ^ "Are you in a 'delusionship'? Here's how to tell". Cosmopolitan. 2023-07-20. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
    14. ^ https://hum.tv/dramas/kaala-doriya/

    See also

    The current Wikipedia time is:
    21:25, Friday, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    To update time purge the cache!
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1251715537"