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

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 9 January 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, 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 9 January 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2024 (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 9 January 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2024 (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 9 January 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2024‎ (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 9 January 2024

– why Example (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2024 (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 9 January 2024

– why Example (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2024 (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. 77 discussions have been relisted.

January 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – The Day the Music Died → Death of Buddy Holly – It would be easier and simpler to name it “Death of Buddy Holly” as opposed to “The Day the Music Died” because it would be a more recognizable and comprehensive name, and also the current name could be confused with the song American Pie. The current name also does not seem very appropriate for Wikipedia, you don’t see, for example, the page for the Attack on Pearl Harbor being named “A Date Which Will Live In Infamy” (I am not comparing Buddy Holly’s death to Pearl Harbor, I was just using it as an example of not naming the article of an event a name that the event has been given). In case of an argument that could validly be made that other notable people died other than Holly in the crash, a precedent would be made by the article for The death of Princess Diana because Dodi Fayed died along with Diana, and however the article is titled “Death of Diana, Princess of Wales” and not “Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed”. MountainDew20 (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Alan Breck Stewart → Allan Breck Stewart – From what I can see, original documents about the Appin murder (e.g. the trial documents available here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AXc0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false) and most later sources discussing the historical figure (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography entry, the Rosemary Gibson and Seamus Carney books linked as sources) spell his first name with two Ls. The one-L spelling seems to have originated with Stevenson and is generally used to refer to his fictional character rather than the real historical person (of results on the Internet Archive for 'alan breck stewart' dated from before 1886, most are mis-dated and clearly references to Kidnapped, and the ones that are actually pre-1886 all seem to be mis-transcriptions of documents that use the two-L spelling: https://archive.org/search?query="alan+breck+stewart"&sin=TXT&and%5B%5D=year%3A%5B1463+TO+1885%5D). Lochnahiolaire (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Baozi → Bao – Although "baozi" is gramatically correct in Mandarin Chinese, English-language sources mostly refer to these as "bao buns" or simply "bao". Bao is an existing primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Baghdad (1258) → Siege of Baghdad – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of long-term significance and in terms of usage. In the first case, it is a level-5 vital article and one of the most famous battles in Muslim history, traditionally seen as the end of the Islamic Golden Age. This is shown by the usage statistics: this article gets an average of around 935 views per day, compared with an average of 20 per day for the other sieges of Baghdad throughout history.[1]

References

  1. ^ https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Siege_of_Baghdad_(1157)%7CSiege_of_Baghdad_(812%E2%80%93813)%7CSiege_of_Baghdad_(1733)%7CSiege_of_Baghdad_(865)%7CSiege_of_Baghdad_(1136)%7CSiege_of_Baghdad_(1258)%7CBattle_of_Baghdad_(946)%7CCapture_of_Baghdad_(1534)%7CCapture_of_Baghdad_(1624)%7CFall_of_Baghdad_(1917)
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Superpredator myth → Superpredators – As I mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, if you look at the sources we cite, they rarely seem to think the term for the subject of this article is "superpredator myth" or "superpredator theory". They just talk about the putative category of "superpredators" and why such a category might or might not be valid. So I think the page should be renamed in accordance with that, and the first paragraph should be something like "The superpredators were a type of criminal in the criminological theories of" etc etc. This is because this is the most common term for the subject this Wikipedia page is about. This fits with other wikipedia article titles such as Flat Earth; the wikipedia page is about the concept itself, whether it be true or false. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 7, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Phir Subah Hogi → Phir Subha Hogi – I recently watched this film and came across the variation in title on Wikipedia. Now as per the original film, the title must be "Phir Subha Hogi"[1] I understand that with passing time, the title must have been a victim of spell-errors but we must give priority to the original one. "Phir Subah Hogi" can rather be used as a redirect. GaiusAugustine (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Berkadzor → Settlement near Sovkhoz No. 2 of Garsharabtrest – before the conflict in Soviet period it was Settlement near Sovkhoz No. 2 of Garsharabtrest. Currently this localty moved back under Azerbaijan control and according to the Azerbaijan administrative division there was never "Berkadzor village". That is why I suggest to rename the paper to its old official name. Zohrab javad (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mitomycin → Mitomycins – This article is about mitomycins. Mitomycin, as the article notes, generally refers to Mitomycin-c, and Mitomycin should redirect there after the move. @Boghog, thanks for fixing my last edit. Agree? RudolfoMD (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SkyWarrior 16:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) → Inverted Castle – The article is almost exclusively a discussion of the Inverted Castle. The entire Reception section is about the Inverted Castle, the Concept and creation section is almost exclusively about the Inverted Castle, and the claim in the previous discussion that it was not independently notable is strange given the fact that almost every source talks more about it than the regular castle. To me, the fact that the regular castle has only two sources that don't talk about the Inverted Castle makes the current title odd, considering that multiple sources identify the Inverted Castle as being responsible for elevating Symphony of a Night as a whole. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 PWHL season → 2023–24 PWHL season – The PWHL have referred to it as the "2023–24" season,[1][2] along with third-party sources such as CBC Sports,[3][4] The Athletic,[5][6] ESPN,[7] Forbes,[8] and ABC News.[9] The 2023 PWHL Draft took place in September 2023, training camps throughout November 2023, and the first scrimmages in December 2023. Disambiguation with an inevitable "2024–25 PWHL season" article in the future should also be considered. — AFC Vixen 🦊 11:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Qajar Iran → Qajar Empire – "Qajar Empire" would be the standard naming convention for this kind of article which focuses on the political entity, its dynastic evolution, its foreign conflicts and diplomatic relations and its global national characteristics. The grammatical form "periodic adjective+country" (as in "Qajar Iran", "Napoleonic France", "Qing China", "Norman England"...) is rarely used on Wikipedia (they are usually redirects), and if it existed for independent articles would more naturally refer to a sociological article about the state of a country and its population during a certain time period (discussing demographics, economy, popular culture... almost to the complete exclusion of dynastic or diplomatic history). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Safavid Iran → Safavid Empire – "Safavid Empire" would be the standard naming convention for this kind of article which focuses on the political entity, its dynastic evolution, its foreign conflicts and diplomatic relations and its global national characteristics. The grammatical form "periodic adjective+country" (as in "Safavid Iran", "Napoleonic France", "Qing China", "Norman England"...) is rarely used on Wikipedia (they are usually redirects), and if it existed for independent articles would more naturally refer to a sociological article about the state of a country and its population during a certain time period (discussing demographics, economy, popular culture... almost to the complete exclusion of dynastic or diplomatic history). पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – List of Microsoft video games → List of Xbox Game Studios video games – - "Move" The current title of this page lacks precision in representing Microsoft's overall gaming business, leading to potential confusion when compared to the List of Microsoft Gaming video games page. To address this, renaming the page to "List of Xbox Game Studios video games" is recommended, aligning it more accurately with the core entity responsible for game development within Microsoft. This adjustment not only eliminates ambiguity but also ensures consistency with existing pages, providing users with a clearer and more cohesive overview of Xbox Game Studios' contributions to Microsoft's gaming portfolio. Ryan York (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Nathan Hale (statue) → Statue of Nathan Hale (New York City) – 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) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Spanish imperial eagle → Iberian imperial eagle – For greater clarity, fairness, precision and neutrality. I created this discussion though I feel like a consensus has already been reached to a degree: Most other language wikis seem to have adopted this or another form instead. The Portuguese Wiki lists it as, in galician it's, in French it's, in German it's, in Hungarian it's and in Polish it's, while in and it's listed by its scientific name Aquila adalberti but otherwise the infobox and the text refer to it as águila imperial ibérica and aquila imperiale iberica respectively. Wareno (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sagrestia Nuova (New Sacristy) → Medici Chapel – This chapel is more often called the Medici Chapel than either the New Sacristy or the Sagrestia Nuova in English-language sources; see the ngram here. It's also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the first phrase, and while there are other chapels of the Medici family, in practice references to the "Medici Chapel" in sources are usually to this one, so the others aren't skewing the ngram results. The article currently at Medici Chapel is really about the museum complex of two chapels at San Lorenzo called the Medici Chapels, plural. Having an article of that scope at that title has created an ambiguity about where to concentrate coverage of the chapel designed by Michelangelo and its sculptures. Ham II (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neff GmbH → Constructa-Neff – New name of the company which has been merged with Constructa, the brands will be sold individually until today. BSH continues to be responsible internationally, while Constructa-Neff is responsible for the European area. 88.152.184.36 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Robots of Stanisław Lem → Lem and robotics – Article does not appear to have been created by someone with English as their first language, "blank and blank" makes critical discussion of the subject easier by widening the scope and would bring it in line with the precedent laid down by things like the cornucopia of "Tolkien and blank" articles maintained by Chiswick. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muhammad Khatami → Mohammad Khatami – On 4 October 2023,[1] the title of this page was controversially changed to "Muhammad Khatami" without prior discussion. The user responsible for the alteration is a CU blocked sockpuppet, and their account has been globally locked as well.[2] The justification provided by said sock refers to "IRNA English", even though it is WP:COMMONNAME we adhere to rather than individual (state media) sources. In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, the overwhelmingly preferred spelling is "Mohammad Khatami," as opposed to "Muhammad Khatami." This preference is evident in places such as Google Books, where "Mohammad Khatami" yields 86,500 hits compared to 48,700 hits for "Muhammad Khatami." Similarly, Jstor records 1,895 hits for "Mohammad Khatami" and 906 hits for "Muhammad Khatami." - LouisAragon (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Cannabis and sex → Cannabis and sensuality – I believe the title "Cannabis and sex" could also imply the constitution of rape regarding those who are under the influence of cannbis while performing sexual acts. (Edit: Or, as WhatamIdoing has stated, cannabis' relationship to biological sex.) For specifics, it may be best to rename the article so that it implies only cannbis' relation to sexual pleasure, rather than solely sex. Edit: It is apparent that "Cannabis and sensuality" is also not a great title, as stated by BarrelProof below, due to a misconception of mine. I apologize for this. I have not edited the move request because I do not know if I am permitted to revoke it.

    I believe the following are better alternatives:
    Option A: "Cannabis and sexuality"
    Option B: "Cannabis as an aphrodisiac"
    Option C: "Effects of Cannabis on sex"
    Option D being oppose any change at all. Urropean (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Spain → Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula – I'm posting this on behalf of Mistico Dois, who moved the page without discussion yesterday, and then self-reverted at my request. I think it's possible that a new consensus has developed since last year's discussions, although to be clear I still prefer the present title: in English-language scholarship, "Spain" is understood to include Portugal during the time period covered by this article, as it has generally been used to translate "Hispania" from Roman (and Carthaginian, for that matter) times up to the establishment of Portugal as a separate state in 1143. But without a requested move, members of interested WikiProjects may not know about the discussion. Please note that this is not intended as a discussion of whether it should be the "Muslim", "Arab", or "Umayyad" conquest, which we also argued over last year. If necessary that can be debated separately, but it'll make this discussion confused. P Aculeius (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lightvessel → Lightship – Who calls these things "lightvessels"? Practically nobody, according to this Google Ngram. Lightship is the common name. The article itself uses "lightship" throughout (lightvessel also, granted). All of the many named instances are called "Lightship [Name]" not "Lightvessel [Name]". The "In popular culture" section has seven entries -- all using lightship. Heck, the spellcheck as I write this is fine with "lightship" but never heard of "lightvessel". And there are no non-ships discussed in the article. (A Light buoy is not a ship, but it is not a vessel either and is not discussed in this article.) Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Physical therapy → Physiotherapy – I have come to see that time changes things and believe the profession's choice should be respected. The World Confederation for Physical Therapy (note it is now a redirect) has even changed its name to World Physiotherapy because of confusion over terminology and the number of people using the terms. Here are some links that discuss the title change: * New brand and website for global physiotherapy body * WCPT to Change Name The two major reasons for change are # brand confusion # "The majority of our member organisations use physiotherapy and physiotherapist to describe the profession and the people who work in the profession."[9] Those are good enough reasons for me to support a move from Physical Therapy to Physiotherapy. There are two name change discussions in the archives: * Geographic scope: Title change * Support "Physical Therapy" as the title of the article. I am a retired PT, and under my previous username of Fyslee, I supported keeping "Physical Therapy" as the title. I have changed my mind. The profession's choice should be respected. While a search for the two terms in English will show that "Physical Therapy" is used more in English than "Physiotherapy" (Americentrism at play in searches!), we need to ask ourselves whether we want to document reality ("The majority of our member organisations use physiotherapy and physiotherapist to describe the profession") or just use of the word in English? English is not the sum total of reality. America's dominance in this area is apparent, as other English-speaking countries use Physiotherapy, and there are far more of them than there are Americans. This is an example where we need to assign proper due weight by reducing Americentrism. Many languages use various forms of Physiotherapy that do not show in an English search. Fysioterapi won't show, and that's Scandinavia. Fisioterapia is Spanish. Many languages do this, and none of them will show up in an English search. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Howard River, Northern Territory → Howard River – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Howard River, when compared to use of the old name for Hinemoatū / Howard River in New Zealand. Looking at relevant results for both rivers in news and academic sources for the last decade, we find the results overwhelmingly in favour of the Australian river: News: * Australia: 19 * New Zealand: 2 Academic sources: * Australia: 72 * New Zealand: 5 I'd note that there were about 10-15 results which were various false positives (eg. a person named Howard, or mistaken references to Howard Creek in Canada as "Howard River"), and there were about five academic results which I could not access enough of to determine which river it was talking about. Despite this, I think these results clearly demonstrate that the river in Northern Territory is unambiguously the primary topic for the name. Page views do not show a clear preference, but this is likely due to the recency of this page and a recent (now closed) move request on Hinemoatū / Howard River and the overall numbers low on both at this stage. Turnagra (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Gamochaeta coarctata → Gamochaeta impatiens – This is the new name recognised for this species by Flora of North America (FNA) and the Atlas of Florida Plants (AoFP) based on this paper by Nesom (2022). iNaturalist, while not a taxonomic authority, is also in the process of implementing this split. Gamochaeta coarctata is still recognised by USDA and WFO Plant List.
    PoWo/IPNI, Tropicos, and CoL/GBIF currently treats Gamochaeta coarctata as a junior synonym of Gamochaeta americana. PoWo will likely recognize this split eventually as well, but I do not see why we could not follow FNA at this point, based on the morphological differences of the south-eastern US adventives. Loopy30 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stepanakert → Khankendi – RM for procedural reasons as User:RocketKnightX had moved the page unilaterally rather than via RM. The last RM from the start of November was closed with a result of "wait a couple months", so about now is the right time for another one, now that there has been time for the dust to settle and see what name reliable sources have started using. I am neutral towards such a move so not voting either way. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 12:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 'Amina → Amina bint Wahb – First off, we need a move because no initial hamza (the ' in 'Amina) should be written per WP:MOSAR.
    I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that the prophet's mother is not the wp:primary topic for Amina, i.e., I believe that it is not more likely to be the topic sought after when typing "Amina" than all other possible topics combined, since there are a lot of notable Aminas listed at Amina (given name). This includes both people named Āmina (long a, short i; like the prophet's mother) and people named Amīna (short a, long i), which both need to be spelled "Amina" per WP:MOSAR's basic transcription rules.
    If 'Amina is moved to Amina bint Wahb, Amina should be a disambiguation page with the content currently on Amina (given name).
    If someone believes that the prophet's mother is the primary topic for Amina, I'm fine too with simply moving 'Amina to Amina. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Seawolf35 T--C 10:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Organ care system → Organ transportation systems – This article is writen like an advert for the named product, mentioning it but providing no critical info about it. Changing it to an article about all such products (including the mentioned Paragonix product) makes more sense. Still needs refs about how exactly those systems work. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Seawolf35 T--C 08:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Colombo International Airport, Ratmalana → Ratmalana International Airport – I propose renaming the Wikipedia page from “Colombo International Airport, Ratmalana” to “Ratmalana International Airport.” This suggestion, while made previously, merits reconsideration due to its strong alignment with key Wikipedia naming policies, specifically Common Name (WP:COMMONNAME), Precision (WP:PRECISION), and Disambiguation (WP:DAB). * Revisiting Common Name (WP:COMMONNAME): Since previous requests, the usage of “Ratmalana International Airport” has further solidified in reliable sources. A recent review of current news articles, aviation records, and government statements consistently use “Ratmalana International Airport.” This trend strengthens the argument for aligning the article title with the most widely recognized and used name. * Enhanced Precision and Disambiguation (WP:PRECISION, WP:DAB): The potential for confusion with Bandaranaike International Airport has increased, given the latter’s growing prominence as Colombo’s main international gateway. Renaming the Ratmalana airport’s article would provide clear differentiation, thus serving the Wikipedia objective of reducing reader confusion and improving article precision. * Addressing Previous Objections: Previous attempts at this change may not have fully captured the evolving context and increasing recognition of the “Ratmalana International Airport” name. It is important to note that Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage reflecting current and accurate information, and the increasing usage of this name in authoritative and recent sources warrants a reevaluation of the page title. * Community and Reader Benefit: This change is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers. It ensures that users searching for information about Ratmalana International Airport find it easily and are not misled or confused by the current title. This aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of providing accessible, accurate, and reader-friendly content. In light of these points, and with respect to previous discussions on the matter, I strongly advocate for reconsidering this change. It not only adheres more closely to Wikipedia’s naming conventions but also better serves the needs and expectations of its global audience. 2001:708:0:19:0:0:0:13 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 3, 2024

  • (Discuss) – History of the Balkans → History of Southeastern Europe – I do not see the clear scope of the article, and being titled as "History of the Balkans" neither the poor definition in the very short lead as "The Balkans and parts of this area are alternatively situated in Southeastern, Southern, Eastern Europe and Central Europe. The distinct identity and fragmentation of the Balkans owes much to its common and often turbulent history regarding centuries of Ottoman conquest and to its very mountainous geography.[1][2]". As first, the term "Balkans" is ill-defined and controversial confusing term which is steadily being replaced by more accurate and acceptable term Southeast Europe/Southeastern Europe hence on Wikipedia we should not promote the term Balkans more than needed. As second, there's no distinct identity, fragmentation is part of a much wider political and sociological context studied by Balkan studies/Balkanology (which is mostly popular in Eastern Balkans and also called as South-East European Studies). As third, current article is heavily overlapping with Prehistory of Southeastern Europe hence with additional medieval and modern history this article is literally "History of Southeastern Europe". Perhaps in the current article something about the idea of the Balkans etc. can be added in the modern history sections (and lead as "The history of Southeastern Europe, or the Balkans, ...", but the whole scope and title should not mention the Balkans per se. As fourth, there is no article History of West Europe, History of Central Europe (just a redirect to Central Europe), History of East Europe, History of South Europe etc., so it is confusing there's one for Southeastern Europe and even more named as the "Balkans". Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Slavic migrations to the Balkans → Slavic migrations to Southeastern Europe – Move and merge of history, talk pages etc. of the articles. The term Balkans is ill-defined and controversial because of which is steadily being replaced by more accurate and acceptable term Southeastern Europe. The term Southeastern Europe can be commonly found in scientific literature and else for the specific topic and context. The other Slavic migrations are to/from Central or Eastern Europe - not some vague term like the Balkans. Slavs are linguistically and so on divided into East, West and South Slavs - not Balkan Slavs. Also, the Balkans by definition isn't broad enough term to include all South Slavs and lands they lived in (e.g. lived in Eastern Alps, Asia Minor, and especially Pannonian part of Hungary all the way up to central Slovakia before their Magyarization in later centuries). As such for the topic is much more accurate and appropriate the term Southeastern Europe. Generally and terminologically is more simple and concise to have the same style neither there's need to promote furthermore the term Balkans more than needed in primary meaning instead of Southeastern Europe for Southeastern part of Europe. Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Brillante Jr. (wrestler, born 2001) → Brillante Jr. – Currently, Brillante Jr. is a redirect to Andrade el Idolo. Andrade used the name Brillante Jr. early in his career, he is best known as La Sombra, Andrade Cien Almas or Andrade el Idolo. At this point, Brillante Jr is an obscure name. So, better to give the current Brillante Jr the article without the (wrestler, born 2001). He has been using Brillante Jr. since 2015, currently working for CMLL. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shakira statue → Statue of Shakira – 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." I should note, Statue of Shakira currently redirects to Cultural impact of Shakira. There are other statues of Shakira but we do not need to disambiguate until a similarly-named entry is created for another notable statue. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Mauro-Roman Kingdom → Post-Roman Mauretania – The current name "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" has never been used by historians and therefore violates WP:COMMONNAME. There is no historical consensus that any kingdom existed in this place and time; see my discussion above. I am therefore requesting a name that accurately covers all the content in the article. However the proposed name is only a tentative suggestion which may be too generic for the article. NotBartEhrman (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Frederick IX of Denmark → Frederik IX of Denmark – - I know it was discussed above a couple of years ago, but I really find arguments for using the spelling with c (German spelling), as opposed to his actual name without c (Danish spelling) basically absent. A little web search indicates that Britannica and some other sources do use the German spelling, but the German Wikipedia uses the Danish spelling, and many sources in English do the same - including news outlets writing about the abdication of his daughter, Margrethe II, announced on New Year's eve 2023. In the absence of a concensus in English language sources for the German spelling, I see no reason to propagate any other spelling than the correct "native" one. Going back to his predecessor, Gorm the Old (reigned approx. 936-958), English wikipedia uses the English name, rather than the Danish Gorm den Gamle. Obviously, that makes sense. The same may be true for e.g, Frederik I (r. 1523-33), spelled with c in English wikipedia, and there may be no clear line for when to switch away from the German spelling, which seems to have some traditional basis in English sources, to the Danish one. Going far back, spellings were variable. I would think we might spell Frederik VIII (r. 1906-12) in Danish, but spell Frederik VII (r. 1848-63) according to English tradition - but clearly, it is also (or primarily) a question of which spellings are generally found in modern sources in English. One source (but clearly not authoritative in this respect) is the English language webpage of the Danish Royal Court, www.kongehuset.dk/en. They use Danish names for all regents since Christian I (r. 1448-81), including Frederik I (where spellings may be said to differ), but English ones prior to that - where most kings had bynames that are naturally translated into English (except for Valdemar Atterdag (r. 1340-75), where it seems his byname is traditionally not translated). Nø (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hudson's Bay Centre → 2 Bloor East – The Hudson's Bay anchor store at Yonge and Bloor (2 Bloor East) closed almost two years ago, the Hudson's Bay signage has been removed and since then the building has been known as "2 Bloor East" officially as well it is commonly referred to as either that or by its address "2 Bloor Street East". Continuing to call this building "Hudson's Bay Centre" is especially confusing as the remaining Hudson's Bay store in Toronto is actually several blocks south at Yonge and Queen (see Hudson's Bay Queen Street). Wellington Bay (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vyooham (2024 film) → Vyuham (2024 film) – According to the trailer released the movie name is spelled as Vyuham by the production house. All citations use the spelling Vyuham for this film. I don't see why it was moved to Vyooham (2024 film) without consulation. Except IMDb, even the production house uses Vyuham as the film spelling. Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hooded dotterel → Hooded plover – Based on phylogenetic studies this species has been moved from the genus Thinornis to the genus Charadrius by the IOC 14.1 (and by ebird/Clements Oct 2023). At the same time IOC (who we follow) has changed the English name to "Hooded plover". Hooded plover is actually the more traditional name and is used by many other sources including ebird/Clements. Aa77zz (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2024 (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) – Viv Richards → Vivian Richards – Sources cited in the article seem pretty evenly split between "Viv Richards" and "Vivian Richards". A Google search also finds many instances of both names in reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be a clear indication that "Viv Richards" is the WP:COMMONAME. While one might be inclined to keep the status quo in a case like this, I'll note that Mr. Richards himself uses "Sir Vivian Richards" in his official socials [28] [29], and that we should follow his preferred usage here. 162 etc. (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Khoiniki → Khoyniki – Per WP:BELARUSIANNAMES, this should follow BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian in the absence of a clear common name. In this case, there is no clear common name. For example, the number of results on Google for "Khoyniki" is greater than the number for "Khoiniki". Google Books returns not enough results for this to be used to determine the common name in English. Mellk (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tore (disambiguation) → Tore – No clear primary topic, the given name has 355 views but the TV series has 4,643, the place in Sweden has 77, the place in Scotland has 41 and the volcano has 24. Gökhan Töre has 1,899 and Elihan Tore has 442.[[31]]. Most Google results are for the TV series and dictionary definition, Images and Books seem unclear but don't appear to return much for the given name. The TV series is recent but given the places and surname the given name doesn't appear to be clearly primary by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Guna (disambiguation) → Guna – No clear primary topic, the Hindu concept has 3,331 views but the people have 3,954, the district has 2,103, the place in India has 1,545, the Lok Sabha constituency has 1,291, the film has 258, the knife has 151, the Vidhan Sabha constituency has 97, the Jainism concept has 49 and the woreda one has 15[[36]]. Google, Images and Books seems moxed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Odesa Military District → Odessa Military District – After a modicum of discussion elsewhere (can’t find the link), some months ago the page was moved on grounds which I believe to be less than solid. The current revision is also heavily slanted toward WP:RECENTISM in a manner that could be construed as intentional. Bottom line, the vast majority of English-language RS not only call it by its Soviet official name, but they also primarily cover its extensive history in the Soviet Union rather than a few years in the 90s when it was a holdover organization inherited by Ukraine and soon dissolved and reorganized as happened to many other Soviet-era formations in their successor states. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Ab urbe condita (Livy) → History of Rome (Livy) – It's been several years since this was last discussed, and while there were one or two attempts to discuss the best title since then, they didn't really resolve the issue. Although the current title is widely used, I couldn't find any evidence that Livy ever called his history Ab Urbe Condita. Yes, it's a history of Rome from the founding of the city, but "From the Founding of the City" doesn't seem to be part of the title—not even a subtitle (Historia Romae ab Urbe Condita would make sense, but there's no evidence that it was Livy's title, and while that might strike people as a practical alternative, it's a bit wordy and translates easily). There is some suggestion that Livy called his history Annales, but that title isn't widely used to refer to Livy today. "History of Rome" seems to be the best alternative, since it describes the topic and is widely used as a title; it would need disambiguation, but so does the current title. It's certainly no less correct than Ab Urbe Condita, and unlike that, it doesn't give readers the false impression that it's what Livy called his work. P Aculeius (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations → Mongolian–Turkic cultural relations – In the AFD there seemed to be a least a somewhat of a consensus that this article is in need of drastic changes, including the removal of "Azerbaijani", which is WP:OR and historical revisionism/negationism as explained in the thread. Both the current article name and the suggested one are essentially Wiki names, I've not seen this being the actual title of a subject, which is what this article is making it out to be, but it's a start I guess. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Holocaust victims → Victims of Nazi Germany – As per the discussion at "Definition and scope," the definition of the Holocaust in the very first line of this article contradicts that of the article for The Holocaust. Whether or not the millions of non-Jewish people, such as gay men, the disabled, Romani etc. should be considered Holocaust victims is a point of contention even if there is broad historical consensus that they are people murdered by Nazi Germany. We do not need to identify the other groups as "Holocaust victims" as that is an academic debate in itself, nor excise their inclusion in the article if we just rename the article and make it clear that the Holocaust is mostly specifically used for the destruction of Jews. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — mw (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kremlin Plot → Kremlin Affair – The article should be renamed "Kremlin Affair" instead of "Kremlin Plot" because other resources on the topic and other parts of Wikipedia referred to it as the "Kremlin Affair" before it was changed. "Kremlin Affair" is more recognizable and consistent with other sources. Padlocks (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pierre (disambiguation) → Pierre – No primary topic, although the name may be the origin of the city's name the city has 7,268 views though it could be somewhat discounted as US cities have the state in the title as common usage, The Pierre has 3,387, the song has 1,378, Pierre: or, The Ambiguities has 364, the penguin has 105 and the restaurant has 45 compared with only 2,280 for the name[[42]]. Also note that Frwiki has the DAB page at the base name so its unlikely that in English there is a primary topic and Plwiki has the city at the base name. In terms of usage its clear that the name isn't primary and while the name may be primary by long-term significance the city is a state capital so also has long-term significance especially in an encyclopedia. The article should probably be split to Pierre (given name) and Pierre (surname). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. ^ "Phir Subah Hogi (1958)". 18 September 2019. Event occurs at 0:31. Retrieved 7 January 2024 – via YouTube.
  2. ^ "Ruditapes philippinarum". WoRMS.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
09:23, Tuesday, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1188949154"