Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 73 discussions have been relisted.

November 10, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Turkish Women's Football Super League → Süper Lig (women) – See my rm above. Regarding this name, the word "football" is redundant in this context, because this was added to separate it from the Women's Basketball Super League, this makes it Kadın Süper Ligi in Turkish, which basically means 'women's super league', thus Süper Lig (women) seems the most logical and consistent with the men version. Beshogur (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frost 05:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 9, 2024

[edit]
  • (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]
  • (Discuss) – Poo → Poo (disambiguation) – I see that feces is the primary subject. I will put
    "Poo" redirects here. For other uses, see Poo (disambiguation).
    on the top of the feces page. Kolano123 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8, 2024

[edit]
  • (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

[edit]

November 6, 2024

[edit]
  • (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

[edit]
  • (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

[edit]

November 3, 2024

[edit]
  • (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,[7] Saudi Arabia,[8] the State of Palestine,[9] and the Organization of Islamic States[10] have called the attack a massacre. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese has called it a massacre.[11] Additionally, Hamas and the Palestinian Civil Defense in Rafah have called the incident a massacre.[12] 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,[13] and an MSNBC analysis indicates Israel should have known there were civilians in the area.[14] Al-Jazeera’s fact checking agency[15] and India Today[16] 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.[17] Egypt[18] and the PA[19] 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]

Elapsed listings

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

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (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]
  • (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) – 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

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1256571714"