Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests


@JohnCWiesenthal Due to the existence of Little Miss Marker (1980 film), Little Miss Marker has been converted into a disambiguation page. GTrang (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1980 film is more popular with readers than the 1934 film. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garrison.pendergrass See WP:NAMECHANGE. – robertsky (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

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

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

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 9 November 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 9 November 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 9 November 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 9 November 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 9 November 2024

– why Example (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 9 November 2024

– why Example (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 71 discussions have been relisted.

November 9, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Pot-holder → ? – "Pot-holder" with a hyphen seems to be by far the least used version. Unfortunate, both pot holder and potholder are very close in usage: Google ngrams, Google Trends (shows "pot holder" being about 50% more searched for than "potholder" in the past few years, before then they were nearly identical), 1,970 Google scholar for "pot holder" (which includes pot-holder but a quick skim finds "pot holder" far out numbers it), 1,450 Google scholar for "potholder". Dictionaries that I looked at are 5-2 in favor of "potholder": "potholder": Collins (which labels it as British), Cambridge (which labels it as "mainly US"), Oxford Learner's (Which labels it as "(North American English)", American Heritage, and Dictionary.com; while for "pot holder": M-W; OED. I'm not a huge fan of just going by dictionary but perhaps give how similar ngrams and such are, I'd lean toward "potholder" which is also the direction ngramas has started to move toward, although "pot holder" was much more common from the 1860s until the late 1960s. I also don't think there seems to be sufficient English variety affinity for either spaced or not to justify using the uncommon hyphenated version. Skynxnex (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Ghosts (American TV series) → Ghosts (2021 TV series) – Back in 2022 this page was renamed as part of a larger proposal that included country of origin as a distinguishing factor. The close was contested and have since been reverted for the other two articles, so the rationale for this page's renaming is no longer valid. We have three Ghost TV shows; they don't come from three different countries so country of origin is an insufficient disambiguator; however they were all made in different years - all three shows should be disambiguated by year. 84.217.39.2 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JuniperChill (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Murder of pregnant women → Pregnancy and femicide – I think the page should be named "Pregnancy and femicide" rather than "Murder of pregnant women" because, throughout the research I conducted to update and expand upon this page, the importance of designating this type of homicide as gender-based, and therefore a femicide, in order to properly address it and prevent further cases, was repeatedly emphasized. I therefore believe that changing the title to reflect this notion is crucial. Additionally, considering studies on pregnancy-associated femicide not only comprise the period of pregnancy, but the postpartum period as well, I feel that the current title does not accurately reflect the subject. Samdlb123 (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Outing (essay) → ? – This essay currently has rather poor visibility, and I believe its title is to blame. For one, adding a hatnote to the target of Wikipedia:Outing and Wikipedia:OUTING to refer back to this essay seems like it would cause more confusion than help, especially given the already-large stack of hatnotes at that target. For two, this essay may be outdated, given it was created in 2006 and its most recent edit was in 2013; due to this, it seems some of the claims in the essay may be inaccurate since Wikipedia has advanced some of its policies since then. In a nutshell, I'm opening this move request since a new title for this page is a start, though not necessarily the end nor the only fix. Steel1943 (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7, 2024

November 6, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tajiks of Xinjiang → Chinese Tajiks – In previous discussions over a decade and a half ago, the main points of contention were: "Which name(s) is more commonly used in reliable sources (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME)?" and "Which name(s) is appropriate, given that 'Tajik' is a misnomer because the group is actually ethnic Pamiris?" Since the discussions in 2009, scholarly articles and books have generally been split in usage of "Tajiks of Xinjiang" and "Chinese Tajiks". Neither name solves the second problem, and adding "Pamiris" in parentheses isn't necessary, in my opinion. The group itself has a distinct history and culture, and it is not merely a situation of Pamiris being on a different side of an international border (i.e. not Tajikistan). The Chinese government uses the term "Chinese Tajiks" in English to distinguish the group from Tajiks and Tajikistanis in China. It's also worth noting that members of this ethnic group have travelled and made homes elsewhere in China, so it doesn't make sense to have an article title that limits them to one specific part of the country. This article isn't about Tajiks or Pamiris who live in Xinjiang, but a distinct ethnicity that originated from the region. The article should therefore be renamed and moved to "Chinese Tajiks". Yue🌙 01:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Crown Office → Crown Office in Chancery – This name can refer to either the Crown Office in Chancery (central UK Government) or the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (devolved Scottish Government). Currently Crown Office refers to the London institution with Crown Office in Chancery being a redirect to it. I would prefer that these be swapped around so that Crown Office in Chancery becomes the name of the article and Crown Office becomes a disambiguation page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hasmah Mohamad Ali → Siti Hasmah Mohamad Ali – The article in question was originally titled 'Siti Hasmah Mohamad Ali'. An editor renamed the title to 'Hasmah Mohamad Ali' without any previous discussion. The BLP's name change has yet to gain currency in the reliable mainstream sources. The old name/title should be maintaind in the meantime.
    Shortcut
    Perusal of government record as far as 1975 also shows 'Dr. (Puan) Siti Hasmah binti Haji Mohd Ali'. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.istiadat.gov.my/semakan-penerima-darjah-kebesaran-bintang-dan-pingat/
Sreeking (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fischer random chess → Chess 960 – "Chess 960" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this chess variant, based on press coverage (newspapers.com articles found from the last 20 years: 82 mentioning "Chess 960" and 65 mentioning Fischer Random Chess, many mentioning both), major chess sites including chess.com and lichess.org, recent books, and chess organizations. Other Wikipedias have also started to move away from "Fischer" in the title with 20 out of 39 using "960" in the title instead. While Fischer Random Chess is still often used as a term, it is no longer the most common name. In recent years, "Fischer Random Chess" is typically mentioned only once in reliable sources, often parenthetically or as a secondary term, with "Chess 960" used for the remainder of the article, book, etc. While the article does discuss several other variants, the focus of the article is Chess 960 and it makes sense to keep the article history connected to Chess 960 as a topic. As to "Chess 960" vs. "Chess960", including the space seems to be more frequent based on newspapers.com and Google searches, but both are often used. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4, 2024

November 3, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan attack → ? – I am bringing this discussion back up with a stronger argument and after the Good Article review has concluded. I have identified many sources calling this incident a massacre. There are likely more, so feel free to add any. They include The Guardian (opinion piece), Morrocco World News, The Peninsula Qatar, Truthout, Al-Ahram, Daily Sabah, Jacobin, Vox (Not explicitly, though cites someone calling it one, says it’s a slaughter in headline, and says Israel is massacring Palestinians), TRT World (Partially reliable) Le Monde, Middle East Eye, El Pais, The New Arab, Mondoweiss, Gulf News, Huffington Post (Disputed reliability), The Intercept, The Nation (opinion piece), Aljazeera and Aljazeera Arabic. Many mainstream media articles also cite people who describe the attack as a massacre, though do not explicitly claim it to be so. Humanitarian groups Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor and Doctors Without Borders have described the incident as a massacre. Officials of Colombia,[5] Saudi Arabia,[6] the State of Palestine,[7] and the Organization of Islamic States[8] have called the attack a massacre. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese has called it a massacre.[9] Additionally, Hamas and the Palestinian Civil Defense in Rafah have called the incident a massacre.[10] Last time, there was also the issue of whether the attacks were intentional, as “massacre” is a loaded word that may imply intentionally killing civilians. Firstly, NYT quotes an expert who suggests Israel may have tried to mitigate harm but accepted civilian casualties,[11] and an MSNBC analysis indicates Israel should have known there were civilians in the area.[12] Al-Jazeera’s fact checking agency[13] and India Today[14] think so, and suggestions by Israel that a weapons dump exploded have been refuted by the New York Times, who found no evidence of the claim.[15] Egypt[16] and the PA[17] also allege that it was intentional. There is still the issue of what exactly to call the article in any case. We have some options:
    A: Keep it the same, Tel al-Sultan _.
    B: Rafah tent camp _.
    C: Just "Rafah _" Personisinsterest (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2, 2024

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes → List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes – In reviewing the previous discussion on the list title, I noticed significant confusion and disorganization. So to review the previously proposed titles: * List of Native American heritage groups * List of unrecognized Indigenous nations * List of unrecognized Native American tribes * List of unrecognized tribes in the United States * List of corporations posing as Indigenous nations * List of corporations self-identifying as Indigenous nations * List of groups that self-identify as Native American tribes * List of organizations self-identifying as Native American tribes * List of unrecognized organizations identifying as Native American tribes * List of unrecognized organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes In summary, the proposed variations: * The main noun: groups, nations, tribes, organizations, corporations * The descriptor: "Indigenous", "Native American", "in the United States" * The qualifier: "posing as", "identifying as" "self-identifying as", "that self-identify as" "unrecognized", "heritage" Now the stated purpose of the move was WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE. These principles emphasize that titles should be no longer than necessary yet descriptive and precise enough to convey the topic clearly to those familiar with the subject matter. However, these principles weren't directly addressed in the discussion and appeared only as boilerplate guidance in the move dialog. Let's evaluate the proposals based on concision and precision: * Main noun: On the basis of concision, "groups" and "tribes" are the best options. In fact, it was noted that "groups" was less wordy. Yet instead an argument was made based on WP:CONSISTENCY, identifying WikiProject Organizations, which is not even a mainspace page. A search of mainspace shows that both groups and organizations are used, with about 736 group lists vs. 528 organization lists. As such, consistency, to the extent there is any when it is so close to 50/50, agrees with concision in using the shorter choice "groups". * Descriptor: While calling these groups "tribes" is controversial, labeling them as "self-identified Native American tribes" is also problematic. For example, the Cherokee Nation identifies itself as a tribe, but including it on this list would be inappropriate. Additionally, "Indigenous" raises broader issues related to colonialism. Descriptions limited to "United States" are more neutral, although not without controversy, as seen in discussions on topics like secessionists and the sovereign citizen movement, but currently those positions are considered WP:FRINGE so it seems safe to use. * Qualifier: "Heritage" is the most concise, as it doesn't require an "as" clause, but it was mentioned that some organizations claim Native American heritage without identifying as having tribal status. A title like "List of United States heritage groups" makes clear that this word does not capture the scope of the desired list. "Unrecognized" is clear and concise - in the previous discussion, it was left out as it made the title "slightly shorter and simpler", but I would argue it is necessary. "Identify" and "self-identify" are not precise enough to distinguish federally recognized tribes from unrecognized tribes. As for "posing", it seems clear it would be a separate list from the current one under discussion. Although, there was the statement that "reliable sources on legitimacy are not 'very scarce'. It really isn't 'muddy' if you're familiar with the field", so perhaps this list will split in the future into "list of legitimate unrecognized tribes" and "list of posers". So this leaves us with the words "groups", "tribes", "United States", and "unrecognized". Plug those through the title generator and... out comes "List of groups not recognized by the United States as tribes". This title seems clear, neutral, and concise in adherence with Wikipedia's guidelines. To compare lengths: * Previous: List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, 48 chars * Current: List of organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes, 66 chars * Proposed: List of groups not recognized as tribes by the United States, 60 chars The proposed title is similar to the previous one but avoids the appearance of potential bias. In a similar discussion, it was determined that the title "List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups" was necessary over the shorter alternative "List of hate groups designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center" for clarity and neutrality. And the proposed title here is both more concise and precise than the current option. Other variations would be: * List of Native American groups not recognized by the United States as tribes, 76 chars * List of groups the United States does not recognize as tribes, 61 chars * List of groups unrecognized as tribes by the United States, 58 chars However, these alternatives are either longer or use awkward phrasing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Neopanax colensoi → Pseudopanax colensoi – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA - overwhelming usage within recent scientific papers, despite mixed use in taxonomic databases. Without a clear scientific basis for a preference of one name over the other, MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES: that there is a clear consensus among New Zealand scientific sources for a clade of plants endemic to New Zealand. *Neopanax and Pseudopanax together form a clade. Currently there are three morphological forms of the species within this clade - two are always described as Pseudopanax, while one (the more basal form) is sometimes described as Neopanax and sometimes Pseudopanax. page 52 of this thesis has a useful graph showing phylogenetic relationships within the group. Neopanax was synonymised with Pseudopanax in the 20th century, re-established as a genus in 2004, but the justification of this was disputed in 2009. The distinction appears to be one based on conventions rather than a clear scientific justification (i.e. less based on whether or not Neopanax is a distinct clade within Pseudopanax, and more based on whether it's justified to use a different name for this clade, or to continue to use the pre-2004 convention). This issue was previously discussed at WikiProject Plants. *Different taxonomical databases use different preferred names. Pseudopanax is overwhelmingly used by New Zealand databases. **Pseudopanax preferred: NZ Flora, Biota of New Zealand, IUCN, iNaturalist, NZOR and NZTCS **Neopanax preferred: CoL, EoL, GBIF, IRMNG, NCBI, OTOL, POWO *Recent scientific sources outside of taxonomic databases overwhelmingly prefer Pseudopanax. Looking at Post-2020 Google Scholar results for species within the Neopanax clade:

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – Swedish Brother's Feud → ? – The current title is perhaps a partial translation of Den andra brödrastriden (no source is given), but as far as I know, the conflict doesn't have an established name. Since Wikipedia's scope is global and it covers all time periods, this short title seems somewhat weird. Also, it should be Swedish brothers' feud, with plural brothers and without capitalization, since it is not really a proper name but a descriptive phrase. I suggest two alternatives, between which I am quite undecided: * Conflict between Birger Magnusson and his brothers, based on the title of Jerker Rosén's dissertation "Striden mellan Birger Magnusson och hans bröder : studier i nordisk politisk historia 1302-1319". * Inter-Nordic conflict of 1302–1319, based on Sverre Bagge's article Aims and means in the inter‐Nordic conflicts 1302–1319 (I don't think the plural is absolutely necessary, and using it might suggest that the article is a list). The latter title would make the focus of the article a bit wider. This would help avoid duplicating content, since the strife between Magnussons is already covered in their biographies. However, going into detail about the power-play between different kingdoms (See Bagge's article) might be a distraction in the biographies, but could be discussed here. Sundberg 2010 calls this Kampen mellan Birger och hans bröder 1304–1310. Sundberg's time limits are explained by his focus on armed conflict. However, I think Rosén's and Bagge's temporal limits make more sense, since the political conflict already starts when Birger becomes of age 1302, and ends in 1319 to his deposition. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2021 Western Kentucky tornado → 2021 Mayfield tornado – The new copy-edited lede changed by @Baffle gab1978 brought to me the realization that Wikipedia is one of the few places on the web referring to this event by this name. As the majority of coverage was in Mayfield, it has informally become known as the Mayfield tornado by sources, and as such Wikipedia should in theory call it that too per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, per WP:Naming conventions (events), [i]f more than one name is in common use, the name used by NOAA or an official weather agency should take precedence except in extraordinary circumstances, and there should be redirects from any other names. This source from the NCEI, a roundup of December 2021 events, states [t]he historic “Mayfield tornado,” as its commonly called, was on the ground for 165.7 miles, had peak winds of 190 mph, and resulted in 55+ fatalities, and as far as I'm aware there's no NOAA/NWS sources calling it the "Western Kentucky tornado" (p.s., I'm using this usa.gov search tool to query this, and that returned 0 for "Western Kentucky tornado"). Strictly off policy, I would boldly move this, but as this is one of the most important tornado articles in today's Wikipedia, I thought I'd start a discussion. Departure– (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Hiawatha (train) → Hiawatha (MILW train) – These paranthetical names aren't quite as clear and precise as they can be since multiple other trains have used these names throughout their history. The simple parenthetical "(train)" isn't really enough to distinguish these different trains from each other. The first article is solely about the multiple trains operated by the Milwaukee Road which predate the current Amtrak train along the corridor of the same name. The name could be changed to "trains" to indicate the multitude of different trains covered in the article. The Amtrak/Via Maple Leaf isn't the only named train with a termini in Toronto, especially the historical Lehigh Valley Railroad train, which also ran to New York City, albeit with a different alignment. The name of the article could also be changed to maybe "Amtrak/Via", but the train from my understanding is moreso grouped with Amtrak. The Amtrak Palmetto is the successor of the ACL train of the same name. The fourth article is about a completely unrelated historical ATSF train operating in California separate from the current Amtrak train. The Wolverine is also the name of a historical New York Central Railroad train. Nonetheless, I don't necessarily believe in these names as final as I want them to be subject to change, and not all of them need to be implemented. I will say that if we decide that the simple parenthetical of "(train)" is sufficient in describing the articles in question, then perhaps instead the article titles for the Amtrak Pere Marquette, Silver Star, and Valley Flyer could have "Amtrak" dropped from their parentheticals for naming consistency across all Amtrak train articles. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Protagonist (Persona 3) → Makoto Yuki – I understand that this request has been made a few times in the past, but in 2024 I think it's by now indisputable that the Persona 3 protagonist's name is Makoto Yuki. This is the default name in both recent ports of Persona 3 Portable and this year's Persona 3 Reload. Characters with customizable names like Cloud Strife and Byleth are titled by their canon names and even the Persona 4 protagonist is titled Yu Narukami despite having a different manga name. The existence of the female protagonist may raise an issue, but I think the protagonist can canonically be considered male given the fact that the female option was a later addition. The option is also absent from Reload and even the official Wikipedia page for Persona 3 refers to the protagonist with male pronouns. However, if we decide we want to acknowledge both we could have a dual title in the same boat as Alexios and Kassandra. Still, I'd discourage this since the female protagonist's default name in Portable is only used in the stage play otherwise. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
19:17, Saturday, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1251715537"