English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requested moves/Current discussions

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
Shortcuts
This page 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. 68 discussions have been relisted.

October 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – KAMAUU → Kamauu – Should be moved back to normal capitalization per MOS:ALLCAPS. It was moved on 21 September 2024 without prior discussion by KAMAUU, who self-identifies as "I am the artist KAMAUU". Gawaon (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)]]
  • (Discuss) – Joseon → Chosŏn – I'm proposing this mainly to poll opinions in the manner of an WP:RFC, as well as to try and illustrate how our new MOS works. If you're a regular on any Korea topics, I encourage you to think about what I'm discussing here because similar principles will apply to many other moves that may happen in the near future. Context: # "Chosŏn" is the McCune–Reischauer ("MR") romanization of 조선. "Joseon" is using Revised Romanization ("RR"). # We recently rewrote MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. As part of this, MR is now recommended for all pre-1945 topics. Before the rewrite, RR was recommended for pre-1945 topics (except, confusingly, for people names lol...). Thoughts: # Relevant policies: WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. These policies are also the foundation for MOS:KO and WP:NCKO. # Coverage in RS: #* MR and "Chosŏn" are used by almost all Korean history academic journals ([1][2]). #* In my experience, practice in books is more divided. Well-respected and widely used history books almost universally use MR and "Chosŏn". All other books (including less reliable pop culture books about Korea) seem to use RR and "Joseon". This divided use can be somewhat seen in the close race on Ngrams, which measures mentions in books. However, if we prioritize the most reliable sources, this still leans towards MR. #* News and pop culture tend to use "Joseon", like Poong, the Joseon Psychiatrist. #* Together, this suggests that academia uses "Chosŏn", but average people may use "Joseon". # Since this article was created 21 years ago in 2003, it has never gone by "Chosŏn". Moving it to that has seemingly never even been requested. I think this clearly suggests that Wikipedia editors have a preference for this spelling. #* Wikipedia's use of the spelling also possibly influenced global use of the spelling as well. #* Oh, and it's also annoying to type the diacritic letter (ŏ); it's frustratingly not easily available on Mac, PC, or iPhones. In short, there's basically three relevant groups here: academic historians (prefer MR), average people around the world (RR), and Wikipedia editors (RR). I think this move should be decided by how much you want to cater towards each of these groups. I want to hear other arguments or want others to weigh in. I'm actually leaning towards "Joseon" being more appropriate. I think Wikipedia is meant to be used by the average person, and clearly both average people and Wikipedia editors prefer that spelling. But I'm leaving open the possibility for "Chosŏn" to happen. seefooddiet (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

October 4, 2024

  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 21:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Uralic Phonetic Alphabet → Finno-Ugric Transcription – This is the traditional term. Salminen (2024) writes Finno-Ugric Transcription has occasionally been called the “Uralic Phonetic Alphabet”, which is a misnomer for every word in the term, as “Finno-Ugric” has been included in the name of the system from the very beginning, the system is decidedly linguistic rather than phonetic, and it by no means constitutes an alphabet. Note the use of the word "occasionally", which means we have both a reliable and recent source for the fact that "Uralic Phonetic Alphabet" is not the primary name. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Best friends forever → Best friend – We have separate Wikipedia articles for Girlfriend and Boyfriend, also for "Significant other", and not only for Friendship but also for specific types of it (Romantic friendship, Cross-sex friendship, Friend zone). Thus I am surprised both that there is no such an article for the topic of best friends and that this sentence has an article of its own. I propose expanding the scope of this article to cover the topic of best friends in general. The sentence itself could have a section of its own if necessary. There's a bigger amount of academic research on the topic of best friends than one might initially expect [3], so there'd be stuff to write about in such an article. Most sources in this article seem to already cover the relationship in general rather than only the sentence. Even some of the text in this article itself already does this (see last paragraph at "Academic studies" section). The article needs rework anyway (some sources are informal, see OUPblog or barbaradelinsky.com; and some of the article's redaction is strange, see In 2010, the BFF concept was a part of a BFF contract "to encourage the signatories to work through their differences before splitting up."), and I think expanding its scope would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jungle music → Jungle (genre) – "Jungle" with no qualification is by far the primary & predominant term. "Jungle music" is not a term standard enough that entails using this WP:natural disambiguation over the standard WP:parenthetical disambiguation. "Jungle (genre)" is also much clearer, as "jungle music" could be ambiguous as referring to literal music of a jungle in the eyes of someone who has never heard of this.  Nixinova   T   C   06:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) → Wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera – Juan Rivera is a person, not a wrongful conviction. He seems notable only for being wrongfully convicted (WP:BIO1E / WP:BLP1E). There was a previous RM for this article which failed, but that was for a different suggestion. The proposed title would provide WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Similar comments apply to the other two. The lead section of the Paul Blackburn article says he was wrongfully convicted, but it seems to be a matter of a lack of sufficient (properly obtained) evidence rather than an exoneration, perhaps the more conservative "overturned" is more accurate in that instance. The Robert Jones case also appeared poised to be retried when the charges were dropped. That may be the most difficult one. There is a BBC article that points pretty firmly toward a different suspect but there was no official exoneration as far as I can tell – the prosecution just declined to retry the case after the conviction was overturned. Rivera received a substantial compensation for his wrongful conviction, but there appears to have been no official declaration that Jones and Blackburn were actually innocent (as far as I know). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Picross → Picross (video game series) – Picross is the name of the pencil-and-paper puzzle which serve as the basis for these video games, that previously was a redirect to Nonogram which is the more common name for those puzzles. In terms of this move, the pencil-and-paper topic is far more the PRIMARYTOPIC than this video game series which is based off that. Note that this would also mean a recreaction of the Picross to Nonogram redirect after this move. Masem (t) 00:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

October 3, 2024

  • (Discuss) – LGBT pride → LGBTQ pride – The page was moved from Gay pride to LGBT pride a few years ago in recognition that this article is about Pride of the community, not just exclusively the Gay community, despite the term Gay pride still being higher in use than LGBT pride was at the time, so the consensus for the article was explicitly to deviate from exclusively applying WP:COMMONNAME as a compound word in the move in 2022 in recognition that the true common name nowadays is just Pride without any qualifiers. Now as a followup some years later, I propose we move it to LGBTQ pride in recognition of the community continuing to evolve and explicitly adding the Q as was also recently done in the main article LGBTQ (RM discussion) in recognition of LGBTQ replacing just LGBT. The person that contested the bold move argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied, but as I pointed out, this article is already not named in line with strict common name of the combined term, but in recognition of the community as the true common name today is simply "Pride" (in line with the sibling articles Pride Month and Pride parade, which doesn't need a qualifier, so no suffix or prefix is needed to disambiguate) without any qualifiers, but since the article requires a qualifier to differentiate it from just the English word Pride, it was then decided to add LGBT for it, which was the common name for the community at large at the time, consistent with the parent article, which was also LGBT at the time and instead of using Pride (LGBT) it was decided to use LGBT Pride per WP:NATURAL to use a prefix, not a suffix, so the current article title should not be interpreted as a compound word, but instead is just a natural combination instead of suffix disambiguation. Following this now, I believe means we should continue to now also follow WP:CONSUB for consistent titling of sub-articles related to the parent title. This is also supported if we combine LGBTQ pride and Queer pride, which is about double that of just LGBT pride per Google Ngram and this also shows that LGBT pride is on a downwards trend since 2017, while LGBTQ pride and Queer pride both are on an upwards trajectory, both individually, as well as combined having overtaken just LGBT pride since 2016. The other alternative would be to break from the natural title disambiguation and call the aticle Pride (LGBTQ) in recognition that the name of the article is just Pride and that the prefix or suffix are just disambiguators from Pride (disambiguation) terms. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Enhanced interrogation techniques → Use of torture under George W. Bush – It seems like the last time this was debated, much of the content of the page and the WP:RS consensus was not present. Now, the article itself shows near unanimous agreement that EIT = torture. I don't have a good replacement name, but the current name has about as much support as "Shower Rooms in Nazi Germany". For example: "According to ABC news in 2007, the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of acceptable interrogation techniques in 2006." If these techniques were "enhanced", why are they no longer used? Even the group the put that name out there doesn't believe in the techniques anymore. It was a branding exercise, not a meaningful summary or specifier on the techniques used. Compare to Enhanced driver's license and Enhanced Fujita scale. I just skimmed the article and the only people I could find calling it not-torture in the modern-ish era are: Bush administration officials, and NPR in 2009 (15 years ago). NPR has since published the term in scare quotes[1], leading one to wonder how useful the descriptor is. I notice the page for Armenian genocide is not the "events of 1915" (one of the Turkish euphemisms for the genocide), for example.

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)). — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Virginia Tech → Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University – The November 2012 discussion has several strong arguments in favor of never changing the name to Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech is the only example cited that doesn't use its formal name; all other technical schools such as MIT and Caltech use their official names in their article titles. Other schools such as USC and West Point also use their formal name as their article titles. 50.47.244.81 (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:VND → Template:Vietnamese đồng – Per WP:TG, Template function should be clear from the template name, but redirects can be created to assist everyday use of very popular templates. For people who are unfamiliar with ISO 4217 (i.e. the vast majority of people), the function of the template is very much not clear from the template name – clearly violating TG. Therefore, we should expand the name per WP:TG and keep a redirect from the ISO 4217 names. Using the full name is also consistent with numerous other templates in Category:Currency templates following Template talk:Chinese yuan#Requested move 8 September 2024. I selected the name with diacritics because it matches our mainspace article Vietnamese đồng; the diacritic-less {{Vietnamese dong}} already exists as a redirect (and therefore can be used by editors when writing articles, just like how {{VND}} will continue to work). I would be okay if we renamed to {{Vietnamese dong}}, though I would prefer to be consistent with our mainspace article. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) → Israel–Hezbollah war (2023–present) – First, there has been significant escalation in the recent weeks of this conflict. Israel has conducted widespread airstrikes on Lebanon, assassinated senior officials of Hezbollah, including its leader, and invaded Lebanon. This is not just a conflict anymore. Second, reliable sources that previously also called it a conflict are beginning to use the term "war". For example, The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN have begun to label this a war. The case for this is strong, and "Israel-Hezbollah war" has been used more commonly than "Third Lebanon War", another proposed name for this conflict. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – United National Movement (Georgia) → United National Movement – This article should be moved to "United National Movement", with the current "United National Movement" being moved to "United National Movement (disambiguation)" page. This UNM is clearly the largest, most significant and the only relevant one. It is additionally the only UNM which either has parliamentary representation or is not defunct. Large political party's such as Law and Justice have pages without stipulating the country as is is clearly the largest L&J party despite others existing in the world. UNM article should follow a similar example. Zlad! (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Quonset Hut Studio → Bradley Studios – The studio that came to be known as the "Quonset hut studio" was the second of two studios (Studio B) at Bradley Studios. Bradley Studios was later purchased by Columbia Studios, who retained the "Quonset hut studio" as Columbia Studio B, but built a new Columbia Studio A as part of the Music Row complex. While Studio B has generally been known as the "Quonset hut studio", it's only part of the story of that recording facility, and even the historical marker at the site is about Bradley Studios and not only the "Quonset hut studio". Now that the article has been expanded to encompass Bradley Studios and later Columbia Studios, I think the article would more appropriately be named Bradley Studios, with a Redirect page for the "Quonset hut studio". synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 19:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Éric Borel → Cuers massacre – This could go either way, but I think this article would be better scoped as an article on the event and not the perpetrator, given WP:BIO1E. Admittedly, a very large proportion of the coverage on the event is about Borel, so even as an event-based article it will probably still largely be about him, but given that he has no notability outside of it and how the event is covered I believe it will be easier to structure and improve as an event-based article. The common title for the event in French is "Tuerie de Cuers", literally Cuers massacre. There were killings in other locations but the sources call it this. This incident is usually referred to without the year in French given how notorious it was (I think it's the worst non-terror mass shooting in France), but admittedly is not too well known overseas so specifying the year may be necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – GoToGate → Etraveli Group – GoToGate is a part of Etraveli Group and this article has been used to house information about Etraveli Group, to the point that this article now has two info boxes. Per the suggestion from FeldBum, I would like to make this move request and later propose a draft to re-shift the focus to Etraveli Group, which has more and better information about it in reliable sourcing, including in Reuters, Financial Times and Bloomberg. Sayna At Etraveli (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – John Whitney (industrialist) → Major John Whitney – I understand honourifics are avoided in article titles but Whitney is referred to as either 'Major John Whitney' or 'Major Whitney' in every source I've seen bar one. It also serves as a way to disambiguate the article without the current unnatural title Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chevalier d'Éon → Chevalière d'Éon – I did not know about the controversial move procedure, apologies. The reasoning for the move remains the same as previously laid out without dissent having been voiced since (here) In short, the RfC from 2014 was inconclusive in establishing any concensus and since then it has been shown that d'Eon used female pronouns in referring to themselves in letters. The discussion on this talk page since has shown most users believe that this is sufficient to make the change. Given MOS:IDENTITY position on the presentation of transwomen lending towards a consistent portrayal in line with their gender identity, it follows that using the masculine form of the title as 'Chevalier' instead of the feminine form used after their openly announcing their female identity is not in line with the article title policy employed for any other transgender individual. Relm (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Weak artificial intelligence → Narrow artificial intelligence – the term "Weak artificial intelligence" is ambiguous and confusing, contrary to the term "Narrow artificial intelligence", which is basically AI designed for a narrow range of tasks. This is also most of what the article is about, although we could keep a section covering the term "Weak AI". The title "Narrow AI" can also be considered. Alenoach (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October 1, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Power Four conferences → Power conferences (college football) – While the "Power Five" conferences died with the old Pac-12, it's unclear and too soon to determine if this "Power Four" grouping has long-term significance in the 12-team playoff era. Reliable sources also alternately describe two tiers in the current power structure, with the B1G/SEC as "Power Two" conferences above the Big 12 (diminished by the loss of Texas and Oklahoma) and the ACC (with Florida State and others currently actively trying to break out of the conference). In the moved article, Automatic Qualifying, Power Five, Power Four, and Power Two would all be included as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES in the lead. Power conferences (college football) is a title that is inclusive of both the BCS / Power Five notable historic era that makes up much of the article and both options for the Power Four / Power Two current reality. This is supported by reliable sources:  :Washigton Post, 2023: The Power Five concept that existed for more than a decade is dead. The sport will be framed around the “Power Two” conferences and everyone else for the next decade. “Everyone else” includes a haphazardly assembled, coast-to-coast Big 12, which picked Utah, Arizona, Arizona State and former Big 12 member Colorado off the Pac-12’s carcass to compensate for losing Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Then there’s the ACC, whose East Coast members are leaning against annexing Pac-12 castaways California and Stanford. The article title Power conferences (college football) and/or Power conferences without disambiguation was supported by most participants in the recent requested move, with the closer stating While there's some suggestion that other names may be even better, there's no direct consensus on that... but there is consensus that the proposed name is preferable to the current name, so moved as specified. If people want to explore other moves in future RMs, they can go ahead. I'm doing that now. In my opinion the "(college football)" disambiguation is needed, as Power Six conferences atop the Mid-majors is a term that exists / existed in College Basketball. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Balancing Rocks → Balancing rocks of Zimbabwe – As far as I can tell, this term is not really a proper noun for a specific place with balancing rocks or for a specific group of balancing rocks and is not unambiguous, as there are balancing rocks in a lot of other places besides Zimbabwe. The most famous ones in Zimbabwe are apparently in or near Matobo National Park and are sometimes called the Chiremba balancing rocks or the Epworth balancing rocks, and one particular group of such rocks is called the Mother and Child Kopje and is featured on the banknotes of Zimbabwe, but this article seems to be about balancing rocks in Zimbabwe in general. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Decapod → Decapod (disambiguation) – 'Decapod (disambiguation)' was created for the express purpose of redirecting to 'Decapod'. However, 'Decapod' clearly has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 'Decapod' is the common name for the order Decapoda that houses all crabs, all shrimp, all prawns, all lobsters, and all crayfish. There are thousands of articles that fall under Decapoda and whose subjects can be called decapods. I've seen at this point several dozen wikilinks formatted as [[Decapoda|decapod]] because we direct to a disambig instead of a PT. At the bare minimum, even if a PT somehow isn't established, 'Decapod' would point to 'Decapod (disambiguation)', not vice-versa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Flag of Macha → Flags from Macha – The current title is a bit misleading, firstly it discusses two flags, secondly "Flag of Macha" suggests that this is the official flag of that village, not a specific artifact found there. I know that the current title is technically correct, but since it's about flags, I think "Flags from Macha" would be a better option. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 13:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cantonese Pinyin → ILE romanization of Cantonese – Per above, whose author I thank for pointing out just how poorly this article is named. I am frankly not sure about the proposed title, but it seems serviceable. If it's not ideal, better considered suggestions are encouraged. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

September 30, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[1] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [26] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [27] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – SS Ivernia → RMS Ivernia (1899) – I've been performing significant research on Ivernia at the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and with other primary sources including ship's passenger lists and correspondence. These all indicate the ship was in fact issued a Royal Mail contract like its sisters, Saxonia and Carpathia . As such, like its sister, the article should be named RMS Ivernia (1899) in line with its sister, using its launch date for disambiguation. This probably means that RMS Ivernia should be also disambiguated to RMS Ivernia (1955). An example of evidence of this prefix that is publicly accessible can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/magbell.04100128/?sp=1&st=image Where Alexander Graham Bell is writing to his wife using official Cunard Letterhead on the Ivernia, stating the RMS prefix, which would have been a highly controversial thing to do less than six months after its maiden voyage if it had not in fact been given contract for the prefix. Other examples include the ship's crew writing RMS on passenger lists, articles in contemporary engineering journals using the RMS prefix, and more, although many of these are not in the public domain. Conversely, all evidence the ship was named SS Ivernia come from secondary sources, possibly influenced in part by the wikipedia title, with hobbyist indexes of ships, wreck sites, and other such content. Tobin Dax (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

September 29, 2024

  • (Discuss) – List of Roblox games → List of notable Roblox games – Despite its tagging as a dynamic list and the title implying that it is a comprehensive list of Roblox games, this page is instead intended to outline a few notable games which do not meet criteria for a full page. Therefore, this should probably be renamed as such, especially given that the inclusion criteria for games that can be added to this page need be notable themselves. This page also goes beyond the standard list format which would usually just use bullets or tables. FamiliarFlareon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning. (See Clickstreams from the last three months hidden box below.) Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

September 28, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Hawk Tuah → Hawk tuah – Unnecessary capitalization. Article is no longer about the "Hawk Tuah Girl" (where title case would be necessary). The RM above was closed without really addressing the captalization. C F A 💬 21:49, 28 September 2024 (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) – Million Roses → Dāvāja Māriņa – Move to original title of song. Current title is English translation of Russian title. No English version of the song is known to exist. Other feasible titles would be Dāvāja Māriņa meitenei mūžiņu (longer version of title), Million roz (transliterated official Russian title) or Million alykh roz (common colloquial version of Russian title). While it could be argued that the Russian version is more widely known, I believe using the original Latvian title (with the Russian titles as redirects) is more respectful and appropriate, considering also that the Raimonds Pauls is famous in Russia too, and the song is AFAIK widely known there to be his, and also AFAIK neither version is widely known in English sources. The shorter Latvian title seems to be more common and also used in Latvian wiki; I don't know if the longer title is actually official (although it has been used on at least one Latvian cover). Mats84 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Gender self-identification → Gender self-determination – This page is about the legal human right to determine one's gender in documents. Gender self-identification refers to the act of self-identifying or self-conceptualizing one's own gender identity. Self-determination includes not only the freedom to self-identify, but also the freedom to disidentification (not identifying as something doesn't automatically mean self-identifying as another thing). And thus gender self-determination is more precise and concise. --MikutoH talk! 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 01:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Extremely online → Chronically online – Chronically online is the common name. I looked up "chronically online", "terminally online", and "extremely online" with quotation marks on Google, and 933,000, 240,000, 153,000 search results were returned respectively (the numbers may vary, but not the order). Chronically online is also the descriptive name, as chronically and acutely are two different things, with terminally and extremely possibly referring to acutely, which would be an inaccurate characterization. Anecdotally, I hear chronically online slightly more commonly than terminally online while almost never hearing extremely online, which has been backed by the search results. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 01:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike → 27 September 2024 Beirut attacks – While Israel states it only targeted the Hezbollah headquarters, several RS say the attack lay waste to "Several apartment blocks"[33] or "multiple high-rise apartment buildings"[34]. Given such an immense destruction of civilian infrastructure, we should not put Israeli claims that this was a "precise strike" on just the Hezbollah HQ in wikivoice (violation of WP:POVTITLE]), and instead pick the most neutral title. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cusk (fish) → Brosme – "Cusk" is a common name of another fish, the burbot (source). I think it's better to use the unambiguous scientific name than to further disambiguate this common name. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Murder of Felicia Gayle → Murder of Felicia Gayle and execution of Marcellus Williams – This article now contains more content sbout the execution of Marcellus Williams than the murder of Felicia Gayle. There are two victims here, Gayle and Williams; one most likely murdered by persons unknown, and the other a victim of unjust judicial killing, as criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, both topics are inextricably linked, precluding a split. For that reason, it needs to be renamed to cover both topics. — The Anome (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [35] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso shooting → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting – Per WP:UCRN. Though at the time of the shooting (around 2019) the shooting was more commonly referred to as something in the vein of "El Paso shooting" by reliable sources, in recent years reliable sources trend towards calling it something akin to "El Paso Walmart shooting". Out of 50 articles published since 2020 about the incident, 42 mention Walmart in the title while 8 do not. The 'Walmart' aspect appears to be part of a commonly recognised naming convention, which should be reflected in the page's title. Reliable sources that tended to include 'Walmart' in their titles include CNN, PBS, BBC News, ABC News, AP News, The Independent, the Washington Post, NBC News and others. Local news sources, such as the Texas Tribune and El Paso Times, tended to also refer to 'Walmart' in their titles. I recommend '2019 El Paso Walmart shooting' as it fits other naming conventions. If needed, I can provide several of the referenced articles, though they can be found by Google search. Macxcxz (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central → AN/MSQ-77 – It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be either AN/MSQ-77 or including the system name and type like AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central. For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either "AN/MSQ-77" or "AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central" (the redirect already exists for that one). It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Reeves AN/MSQ-77. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 22:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Moggy → Domestic cat (landrace) – Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. Cats are found worldwide. There is no place for a localized colloquialism to be a MAIN page reference on Wikipedia. I am located in the United States and never once have I ever heard the term “moggy” used to refer to a cat. The merging of Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat was an appropriate move as the only difference is the gene for hair growth. However, I don’t understand why a slang term page was revived from like, 2007 to merge the two pages together. Wikipedia Manual of Style in the Opportunities for Commonality section states that as an international English-speaking Wikipedia, using universally accepted terms is much more appropriate. For example, “to mog” or “mogging” in Gen Alpha terms - see mog. Nobody outside of Britian or Australia even knows what a moggy is. To make things messier, there were previous merges and fights about “moggy” vs. “moggie.” Y’all do not need a page for your local colloquialism. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality bullet points 1-4. My new write-up for the beginning of the new article also explains this landrace breed, using hyphenation glossing as is suggested by the Manual of Style: A Domestic shorthair or Domestic longhair cat, sometimes regionally referred to as a moggy, is a landrace breed of cat reproducing without human intervention for type. The vast majority of cats worldwide lack any pedigree ancestry. The landrace can include cats living with humans or in feral colonies. Gene flow moves between the two populations as feral cats are tamed, housecats are released, and free-roaming unneutered cats breed freely. Simmy27star (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Qi (Henan) → Qǐ (state) – Currently this is the only article in Category:Ancient Chinese states that isn't disambiguated by the word "state". Several other reasons for the move request: Qi County, Hebi and Qi County, Kaifeng are both in Henan; the 12th-century puppet state Qi was also based in Henan; and several other polities named Qi also covered parts or the whole of Henan (including the Shandong-based Qi (state)). Not saying that the word "state" is in any way precise (it's obviously not), but it's good to be consistent with other articles in the same category. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 08:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=8390716"