Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

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

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

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

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

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

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Oruro → Oruro (disambiguation) (currently a redirect to Oruro) (move · discuss) – See above. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Balakanda is mostly used.2409:4072:6383:772C:F0C2:4A53:360C:4DB8 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 2 August 2022" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 2 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 2 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 2 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022‎ (UTC)

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 2 August 2022

– why Example (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 2 August 2022

– why Example (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 47 discussions have been relisted.

August 2, 2022

  • (Discuss) – 1961–1975 cholera pandemic → Seventh cholera pandemic – It's controversial if this pandemic actually ended or not. For example the WHO's position on the subject is that the pandemic is still ongoing. Other wikipedia articles (pandemic, history of cholera) mention it as an ongoing pandemic. The current title reflects only one point of view of the subject, and should be renamed accordindly, without taking sides. I don't know why, but mediawiki doesn't allow me to insert external links, so I can't link references, but some can be very easily found with a google search, e.g. look for "who cholera pandemic", or look for the academic reference I give in another section of the article discussion page. 37.166.98.34 (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Free Territory (disambiguation) → Free Territory – The original title for the article about the Makhnovshchina, created in 2006 by a now-banned user, was recently discovered to be erroneous after research found no mention of a "Free Territory" in any sources about it. Substantial citogenesis was caused by this, with hundreds of other Wikipedia articles linking to a "Free Territory", but I have since corrected these errors. Given that the term "Free Territory" being applied to the Makhnovshchina is now known to have been erroneous, I think that this disambiguation page should now be the rightful holder of the "Free Territory" title. (Whether or not the Makhnovshchina should still be included in the DAB page, as substantial citogenesis has now linked the two names, would be subject to a different discussion.) Grnrchst (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Apartheid (crime) → Crime of apartheid – The main name for this topic should be the formal title of "crime of apartheid" to better distinguish and disambiguate it from Apartheid with a capital "A", i.e.: South African Apartheid. By having the page name phrased as Apartheid (crime), we display apartheid with a lower case "a" (the crime) as Apartheid with an upper case "A", which would be best avoided for clarity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

August 1, 2022

  • (Discuss) – FOAF (ontology) → FOAF – Disambiguation not necessary since FOAF has redirected to the ontology page since 2014. One of the following must be true: # The ontology is the primary topic for the term "FOAF" and should be at the base name. # The ontology is not the primary topic for the term "FOAF" and FOAF should be retargeted to either Friend of a Friend or Friend of a friend. This requested move will decide which of those scenarios bears out. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Resorts World Manila → Newport World Resorts – Resorts World Manila went through a name change last July 20, 2022, with multiple reliable sources reporting the change (1, 2, and 3). Per WP:NAMECHANGES, "Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." I think it is time to move the article carrying the new name (Newport World Resorts) and leave its former name (Resorts World Manila) as a redirect. – Abacusada (t • c) 15:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – CommutAir Flight 4933 → United Express Flight 4933 – Per WP:COMMONNAME, crashes of regional jets operated by contractors under a major airline's regional brand name should use the brand name for easy identification by members of the general public, who are typically unfamiliar with contractors such as CommutAir (not to mention Envoy, Endeavor, Republic, Jazz Aviation, etc.). A quick survey of existing regional airline crash articles reveals a lack of naming consistency, and there is also no uniform naming convention in the aviation accident style guide. I have started a talk page discussion about possibly revising the naming conventions to clearly address regional-brand flights. Carguychris (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Academic Bookstore → Academic Bookstore – Article titles should not use the word "the" except when its part of a proper name of a work, which it is not in this case. Even the official website refers to the store as "the Academic Bookstore" and not "The Academic Bookstore". JIP | Talk 13:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

July 31, 2022

  • (Discuss) – IPL → IPL (disambiguation) – Indian Premier League is clearly the primary topic for the acronym IPL, with an average of 9000 views a day. A 2011 RM failed because Intellectual Property law was considered a comparable primary topic; however, it currently has only 1500 page views a day on average. AryKun (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Society of Jesus → Jesuits – "Jesuit" is the common English name used for the order, used in public branding. For example, the website for the order (https://www.jesuits.org/) first mentions "Society of Jesus" only on the "About Page"; the use of "Society of Jesus" has similar limited use on the United Kingdom website (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/). Renaming this page to "Jesuits" would be more familiar to the general public, and be in line with the articles for other major orders such as the "Order of Friars Minor" (Franciscans) or the "Order of Preachers" (Dominican Order) –Zfish118⋉talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC). In the renamed article, "Society of Jesus" would remain a bold faced official title in the first paragraph. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

July 30, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Rehman (Pakistani actor) → Rehman (Bengali actor) – Rehman not only acted in the Pakistani films. He also acted in many Bangladeshi films. He acted Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi etc films. So the title is not suitable. Renaming to "Rehman (Bangladeshi actor)" isn’t suitable because he acted in Pakistan too and he was a Pakistani citizen. He is Bengali so the requested title will be better I think. Mehedi Abedin 23:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pocahontas → Matoaka – Whilst Pocahontas is the name of this article since most white people only call her that, I think that the page should be renamed Matoaka. Firstly because to me it's unencyclopedic to call her by her nickname. And secondly, since Indigenous people call her both names. Therefore,I don't think that Pocahontas would be the article name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since this only takes into account the primary name for white people - and white sources - over Native American people and sources. Stephanie921 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – RF (disambiguation) → RF – The base name RF is being used as a redirect to radio frequency, which is not the primary topic for the acronym. There are 27 different "RF" articles listed at the dab page. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Volcanic Explosivity Index → Volcanic explosivity index – It's been 5 more years without a consensus on capitalization, so let's look at this again. As pointed out before, sources are pretty mixed and lean toward lowercase; our guideline in that case is to use lowercase. The capitalized version appears mostly in connection with defining the acronym, as in "Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI)", as that's a pretty common style, and in titles and headings and such. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we go by usage in sentences, and that's where it's more often found as lowercase, as in "a volcanic explosivity index of 5". So let's bring this in line with our guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Restelicë, Kosovo → Restelicë – I am proposing move "Restelicë, Kosovo" to "Restelicë", because there is no other Wikipedia article with the name Restelicë to add ", Kosovo" and there is another article for the same place, but without ", Kosovo" BalkanianActuality (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Conchita Wurst → ? – Tom Neuwirth presently re-directs to Conchita Wurst. The redirect should be cancelled and either this article moved to Tom Neuwirth or the section on Conchita should remain here. WP:Commonname does not apply since that refers to case (e.g. Bono) where someone is better known by another name. In this case, Conchita Wurst is a stage persona but Neuwirth also performs as himself and as another character 'Wurst'. Personas do routinely have their own article at Wikipedia (e.g. Alan Partridge) but this does not redirect all the material about the performer to that character's name (e.g. Steve Coogan). In addition, Neuwirth's pronouns are not respected with the re-direct. Neuwirth is a gay man (he/him) yet the Conchita article is about a persona whose pronouns are not clear This creates much unnecessary and confusing ambiguity around pronouns. Finally, Neuwirth is a highly successful recording artist who lives his daily life not as the persona Conchita. Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

July 29, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Wagatha Christie → Vardy v Rooney – The present title is in an unencyclopedic style. There may be a Wikipedia guideline that we do not always have to use the common name if a more encyclopedic title exists, e.g. Octomum. The proposed new title is also consistent with other articles in the category "English defamation case law". PatGallacher (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ghost Site Mounds → Ghost site mounds – Alternatively, maybe just Ghost site. The historical marker says "The Ghost site consists of 3 earthen mounds. ..." This book calls it the Ghost site without mentioning mounds, as does this one. I can't find any source that calls this place "Ghost Site Mounds" in a sentence. The title is purely descriptive. Most "XXX site" articles are at lowercase site, as in sources (well, the ones I have fixed at least; there are others). Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Al-Nurayn Mosque → 2011 Al-Nurayn Mosque attack – This article seems either mislabelled, or possible it was created as one thing and became another. As it stands, 90% of the material is on the 2011 arson attack, not the mosque itself. Even if there are sources that would support an article on the mosque, it would seem to make sense to rename and rescope this particular page (and the material it currently contains) to solely and clearly reflect the attack from start to finish, and, if someone wants recreate a new article on the mosque in the future (and they can find sufficient sourcing to create a body of content on the building), they can do so at the redirect. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Akira (planned film) → Draft:Akira (upcoming film) – Earlier versions of the page can't be an article due to not entering production yet, but it can be a draft. It deserves to at least have a draft, until/unless the film gets officially cancelled. Also, changed PLANNED to UPCOMING as that's the more common way to categorize on the Wiki for undated upcoming films. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Python brongersmai → Blood python – This species has a well accepted and unambiguous common name, so I suggest that this article should use that title. The target name has apparently always led to this topic and in fact was the name of the article about this snake before 2007. There was a page move of 2007 when someone moved it away from that name with an edit summary saying "Scientific names should be used for page names on biological organisms whenever possible to avoid confusion." That is not Wikipedia's current naming convention, which prefers common names. I've had a little trouble tracing the page history – I wonder if there was a WP:CUTPASTE move. Some of the edit history is now at Python curtus brongersmai, where the 2007 article was moved and then later converted to a redirect in 2014. This species was previously considered a subspecies of Python curtus, but was elevated to species status. In fact the binomial name situation is a bit confusing, since older sources would call this snake P. curtus instead of P. brongersmai. The Reptile Database does not show "blood python" as a common name for P. curtus; it only shows that name for P. brongersmai. An NGram chart is here. The suggested term is also more popular than "Python brongersmai" in Google Scholar and vastly more popular in a Google Advanced Search for exact phrases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Quidditch (real-life sport) → Quadball – Official name change supported by both US Quadball[2] and the International Quadball Association[3], the two biggest governing bodies in quadball. Name change has been expected for over a year now (i.e. the community have been on board with a name change) and was made official on the 19th July. The ame change has been posted by many major news sites[4][5][6][7][8][9] and a precendent has been set on Wikipedia by when Ultimate_(sport) in relation to the common name, when Ultimate changed it's name due to copyright reasons related to frisbee.

References

  1. ^ "ViacomCBS and CJ ENM Ink Global Content Pact, Will Launch Paramount Plus in South Korea". Variety. December 7, 2021. Retrieved December 8, 2021.
  2. ^ "Quidditch Changes Name to Quadball". US Quadball. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  3. ^ "IQA Announces Upcoming Change of "Quidditch" to "Quadball"". International Quidditch Association. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  4. ^ "Quidditch changes name to quadball after JK Rowling's trans statements". the Guardian. 2022-07-20. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  5. ^ "It's official: Real-life Quidditch won't be called Quidditch anymore. Here's why". ABC News. 2022-07-21. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  6. ^ Zee, Michaela; Zee, Michaela (2022-07-20). "Quidditch Changes Name to Quadball Following J.K. Rowling's Trans Comments". Variety. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  7. ^ "Quidditch changes name to distance itself from 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling". NBC News. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  8. ^ CNN, Scottie Andrew. "Quidditch is changing its name to quadball to cut ties with J.K. Rowling". CNN. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  9. ^ Pisani, Joseph (2022-07-20). "Quidditch Ditches 'Harry Potter' and J.K. Rowling, Rebrands Itself 'Quadball'". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
-- NotCharizard 🗨 07:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) → Liberal Democratic Party – I argue that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Liberal Democratic Party". Taking a look at the two usual criteria: For usage: Out of all the articles called "Liberal Democratic Party", this article gets the bulk of the views (i.e. more than two-thirds.) Unfortunately there's too many to fit into one pageviews query, so here's two links. For long-term significance: Of the other articles called Liberal Democratic Party ([country]), all are minor parties, and most never won any parliamentary seats. Contrast that with this article, which is about a party that has governed Japan for the vast majority of the last 70 years. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

July 28, 2022

  • (Discuss) – 2021 United States Capitol attack → January 6 United States Capitol attack – Based on the result of this move discussion, a few months have passed. In those few months, the January 6th committee has conducted its first string of televised theories. Headlines on my news apps usually involve "A January 6th rioter pleading guilty". The Justice Department is looking into Trump's involvement in the "January 6th attack". I think enough time has passed for January 6th to become the dominant name for referring to the attack on/storming of/riot on the United States Capitol. Let's start with the news. Sources from every angle, liberal and conservative, domestic or foreign, conspiracy or reliable, all use January 6th as the name of the insurrection. See CNN, France24, Chinese State Media, the Associated Press, Fox News, Mother Jones, the Hindustan Times, Sky News, and the Korea Herald. The blacklist prevents me from linking InfoWars, though as untrustworthy as they are, even they use the name Jan 6. There are close to no talking points that this many news sources from such a diverse picture of the international press agree on. Put another way, think of this as the CEO of ExxonMobil and the leader of Greenpeace, or Donald Trump and Joe Biden, both referring to the attack on the Capitol as 1/6. The current title is okay, but it doesn't do the job of identifying the event as well as "January 6" or similar abbreviations. Many of my motivations for proposing this move have already been listed in the move discussion, though I do think that WP:Common Name and WP:RECOGNIZE do sway the tide in favor of using January 6 more so than 2021 US Capitol Attack. I've listed some of the arguments from the previous discussion I think would be most compelling. *January 6 seems to have become the WP:COMMONNAME. Not too dissimilar from September 11 attacks. Not opposed to having 2021 in the title, though. Pilaz *It has became the common name. This is how its referred to in media and scholarship about the event. I don't even understand the arguments against changing it TiddiesTiddiesTiddies *It's been a year, and the test of time shows quite clearly that "January 6" is the common identifier used by news media, politicians and the general public for this incident, and therefore should be part of the article's title. The date is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Beyond My Ken *[Within the discussion], AlexEng sums things up accurately: Many of the above opposes are simply false, or they are a blunt reiteration of previous consensus with no explanation of why that consensus should not change based on the increased use of this particular terminology in sources. Oppose rationales have been weak, non-existent, or simply false. For example, it's been repeatedly claimed only one half of the US political spectrum uses the common name, but that's demonstrably false: All parties use the common Jan 6 name. Rationales not based in reality should be afforded appropriate weight. Feoffer While the media and the news certainly provides compelling merit for moves, I think that the evidence that solidifies the move the most is how the House Select Committee investigating the attack has chosen the name "January 6" instead of "2021 Attack". The domain name for the committee is january6th.house.gov, and the homepage of the committee's subdomain prominently features not "2021" but "January 6th". The name has proven to be the more common name by far. Additionally, event names containing years really don't occur unless common consensus supports it. This usually happens when the event was happening over an extended period of time or if there was only one extremely and overly dominant event happening in that year; examples of this phenomenon include stock market crashes and financial downturn like the 2008 Financial Crisis and the Crash of 1929 which incited the Great Depression, or laws which have their name in it like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many more events which have a date listed in the name use the day and/or month and not the year if the event does not happen over a more extended period of time. This happens all across history; take a look at the October Revolution in Russia, the St. Valentines Day Massacre from the Al Capone era, France's September Massacres, of course the attacks of September 11th, the Tiananmen Square Protests (which very often are called the June Fourth Incident or 6/4 and don't usually include the year because there was only one major recent Tiananment Square protest), the August Coup in the Soviet Union, and too many others to mention. It has also been suggested to move this and its daughter articles to January 6, 2021 United States Capitol Attack, which I would not be opposed to as a middle ground, though I could see why people think the title of the article would be a little bit too long. If push comes to shove, January 6th has proven to become the most common name for the incident, and history books are far more likely to use the date of January 6th as the name rather than the current title of the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

July 27, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Car layout → Powertrain layout – I suggest moving the article to 'Powertrain layout', 'Car powertrain layout' or 'Engine drive layout'. The current name of just 'Car layout' is vague, and the first that comes to mind is things such as seating positions, storage, door types and placement, trunk layout, etc., which would be interesting subjects, but not what this article is about Sauer202 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

July 26, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Chase Parker (golfer) → Chase Parker – Current base "Chase Parker" page is a redirect to another person named "Chasen Parker". I get how the name could be confused, but it makes sense for the actual person with the base name to have the non-disambiguated page. Neither draws significantly many views, typically under ten combined. Neither seems to be the dominant name in this area, either. Debartolo2917 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

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) – Sudeep → Sudeepa – His stage name is now Kiccha Sudeepa and that is how he is credited in Kannada films. (Kempe Gowda, Vishnuvardhana, Maanikya, Ranna, here in Kotigobba 2, Hebbuli, The Villain, Kotigobba 3, and now Vikrant Rona). Those teasers and his Twitter account (here) mention both names. A similarly titled article Dhananjay (actor) was moved to Dhananjaya (actor). #See this: Google Sudeepa search. #Note He was only credited by this name (Sudeep no 'a') from approx. 1997-2010 and by Sudeepa from 2011 to present (in all Kannada films and some non-Kannada films). The name Sudeepa is also apparent in non-Kannada films such as Eega, Mudinja Ivana Pudi and Dabangg 3. Notable exceptions include Puli and Sye Raa Narasimha Reddy (both are not Kannada though), where he was credited as just Sudeep. As of late, he is credited in Kannada as Sudeepa as stated above. DareshMohan (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Captain Britain → Brian Braddock – "Captain Britain" title has been used by a variety of characters (as well as the Captain Britain Corps) and is no longer used by Brian Braddock, who is the subject of this article. This article should be moved to "Brian Braddock," while "Captain Britain" should be either a disambiguation page, or an article about the publication history of the moniker itself (ie: Robin, Captain Marvel, Batgirl, etc.) Pibbs (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Battle of the Siverskyi Donets → May 2022 battle of the Donets – The last RM has ended in nothing, but I still argue that the title is not precise and that there's far better possible options. We are already in late June and I haven't seen this event receiving much attention lately. I think people in a few years could see the current title and not be sure what to expect. It could be an article about WW2, the 2014 war, the 2022 invasion, maybe even some Mongol invasion. So it is clear that there's basis for calling this a battle and not an incident or similar. A "near Bilohorivka" type of title is also problematic since the article has been expanded ever since the last RM was started and it now includes other attempted crossings on other villages not particularly less notable than Bilohorivka. Thus, I propose May 2022 battle of the Donets. The month of May has passed and I believe there have not been other notable events at the river during the invasion, so adding the month and year to the title would suffice for precision. Adding only the year would not be enough as I can tell from memory right now that on April there was fighting going on in the river after the Russians won in Izium. I would also like to drop "Siverskyi" from the current title as the river's name in Wikipedia is Donets. Furthermore, "Siverskyi Donets" is the name in Ukrainian but the river also passes through Russia. May 2022 battle at the Donets is another option, less proper name-like and more natural, and it could enter into consideration. However, I don't want this RM to end in no consensus again so I will not be striving too hard for this, and "May 2022 battle of the Donets" remains as the primary proposal. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra → Same-sex marriage in Andorra – 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. Robsalerno (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
17:37, Tuesday, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1098676740"