This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
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.
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 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.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
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:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
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.
I've reverted the recent page move, back to Pont de la Concorde (Montreal)... as far as I can tell from sources such as [1][2][3] it is reasonably common to use the French title in English works. At the very least this merits a discussion. Also, as an aside, I wouldn't support the move suggested here anyway. "Concorde Bridge" can just as easily refer to the bridge in Paris as the one in Montreal, even in English. — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Howver, Paris is French, but Montreal is bilingual English and French, so the affinity falls towards Montreal and not Paris. And Montreal English exists, even if the Provincial Government of Quebec has outlawed its use in official contexts, such as the bridge name. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCTV, "For the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", when disambiguation is required, use: (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in reliable sources." The sources in the article say "serial", so this move would need some contrary evidence. SilverLocust💬06:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r, I'm not necessarily objecting, but please evaluate the contents of the article. WP:NCC recommends omitting "The" for character articles. If the article is more about the publication itself, that is when WP:THE applies to the NCC conventions. -2pou (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 15 December 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:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
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.
}}
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.
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Joseph Quinn (actor) → Joseph Quinn – This page is clearly the primary topic for this article name, especially when comparing to other articles of the same name. The only article with this exact name is Joseph Quinn (murder victim), which rarely receives any pageviews compared to this page. In fact, this page receives the overwhelming majority of pageviews when compares to other pages listed on Joe Quinn. Therefore, I think this is reasonable to move. Hummerrocket (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anita White → Lady A (singer) – The controversy doesn’t preclude us to have two articles with the same title. The two entities clearly use the same name professionally so why should their articles not reflect that. She clearly uses her WP:NICKNAME professionally so it must be the name of her article. The band, however well-known only used the name recently so WP:RECENTISM is a factor. There is absolutely no reason why the two artists can’t share a name especially since they have settled it in a lawsuit. There is clearly WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC with the name Lady A since the singer has used the moniker longer but since the band is more popular. Theparties (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)03:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Islamic State → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in First Islamic state page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Wikipedia should not work on the basis of who claims the title. Therealbey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gwon Yul → Gwon Yul (general) – Seems to be a conflict between the two WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Gwon Yul currently does not meet the criteria for primary topic by usage WP:PT1: of the three ambiguous "Kwon Yul" articles, the army general is last in pageviews. Over the last year, the other two Kwon Yul articles have received an average monthly pageviews of around 15,000, while the army general has received only 1400. [4] However, by WP:PT2 (long term significance), the army general is obviously the primary topic. Given the conflicting criteria, and what seems to be a very large pageview disparity between the army general and the other Kwon Yul articles (army general receiving 10x less traffic), I thought it'd be appropriate to open a discussion to see if the army general is indeed the primary topic or if there is WP:NOPRIMARY here. A move here would also involve retargeting the redirect left at Gwon Yul to Kwon Yul (which is the same name, 권율, just romanized slightly differently) RachelTensions (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Aiah (singer) → Aiah – Currently, the link Aiah redirects to List of minor Hebrew Bible figures, A–K#Aiah, which contains only a brief mention of the biblical figure. In contrast, Aiah (the subject of this article) refers to a member of the Philippine girl group Bini, which has already established notability. In addition to the group's prominence, the singer herself is individually notable, particularly for her personal project "Aiahdvocacy", which has received significant coverage from various Philippine media outlets. The singer has considerably more notability than the biblical figure, and no other notable individuals have an article beginning with "Aiah". Given the singer's greater notability, I believe the "(singer)" disambiguator is also unnecessary, and these satisfies the criteria outlined in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Võro language → Võro dialect – A dialect and regional standard of South Estonian per sources. The article might originally have been intended for the whole language, but now we have a separate article for that. 'Voro language' is either a synonym of South Estonian, or [as in this article] specifically Voro dialect, often as the standard of South Estonian. The ISO code [vro] is for South Estonian / Voro-Seto, not just Voro dialect. The target has a page history as a duplicate article, which might be moved to Voro dialect [without the diacritic]. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). — kwami (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Rustamid Crisis (873-874) → Rustamid crisis – Date ranges should not use hyphens. In this case, the date range also appears unnecessary. I also see no evidence that "crisis" needs to be uppercased. Google Advanced Search only finds four web pages with the phrase "Rustamid Crisis" (uppercase or lowercase), and all of them are from Wikipedia, so this seems to be a descriptive title, not a proper name supported by sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Cabinet of Germany → Federal Government of Germany – "Federal Government of Germany" is the natural, precise, concise and above all consistent title. On the other hand, "Cabinet of Germany" is not commonly recognizable and not a title that readers are likely to look or search for if they wanted to find the German government.[5][6] Furthermore, the current title is colloquial and legally (see Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, sixth section, "VI. The Federal Government") and technically incorrect. The title also differs from all other search engine results on this topic and the official website itself[7].
(Discuss) – Habtamu Ayalew Teshome → Habtamu Ayalew – In the Ethiopian naming system, Habtamu is a subject name, Ayalew is a surname and Teshome is a grandfather's name. So the grandfather name is no longer identified with the subject of the article as soon as there is another identical article in Wikipedia named "Habtamu Ayalew". A previous move to Habtamu Ayalew has been reverted due to potential page vandalism and I resorted requesting move here. AsteriodX (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>08:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – O-Negative (1998 film) → O-Negative – Option A: The capitalisation and hyphenation of the titles are adequate distinction of the topics, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Each page should have a hatnote linking to blood type and the other film. The redirects can be speedy deleted as G6. Option B: The details are too small for distinction, and the blood type is the primary topic for all capitalisations. The hyphen is adequate disambiguation between the films, which should have hatnotes linking to each other. Option C: The details are too small for distinction of all these topics, and the films also need disambiguation against each other. Option D: The hyphen is too small a detail but capitalisation is adequate to indicate either of the films as the intended topic. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC), 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>07:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Trialeti–Vanadzor culture → Trialeti culture – The page was created under the name "Trialeti culture" back in 2007 and was moved under its current name without a discussion [11] and under the pretext that that is how this culture is referred to "in academic and archaeological sources" and that other archeological cultures of the Caucasus (Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture, etc.) are equally referred to via double names. The move was undone [12] but reinstated with more or less the same argumentation [13]. Meanwhile, a simple search on Google Scholar reveals 277 results for "Trialeti culture" and 32 results for "Trialeti-Vanadzor culture". The argument about the prevalence of double names elsewhere falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Parishan (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
(Discuss) – Kim Ji-yeon → Kim Ji-yeon (fencer) – There are at least 5 people on Wikipedia who have the name "Kim Ji-yeon" (or one of its romanization variations). Of those five, two are commonly known as a stage name (Kei (singer) and Bona (singer)), but the other three are commonly known by their actual name. Of those three, there is enough overlap between them in traffic to say that there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Kim Ji-yeon" or its variants; see pageview stats for the last 12 months: [18]RachelTensions (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ji-yeon (name) → Ji-yeon – Ji-yeon is currently a redirect to an episode of Lost (TV series) named Ji Yeon. Over the last year, the redirect has received an average daily usage of one. [19]Ji-yeon (name) should be moved to Ji-yeon because it's clear that the redirect to the lost episode "Ji Yeon" is not being used, and the episode's name is specifically "Ji Yeon", not "Ji-yeon". Other ways of presenting the name, including Jiyeon and 지연, already redirect to Ji-yeon (name). I think a hatnote on the name article pointing to the Lost episode for readers who have decided to search for the hyphenated version would be sufficient. RachelTensions (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Awami League → Bangladesh Awami League – The correct name of the party is "Bangladesh Awami League" it is also written on the official website of the party and it means Bangladesh People's League and is simply called Awami League for abbreviation so it is better to put the full name of the party, because the opposition party it is called BNP for short but its Wikipedia page gives its full name and is called Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Guspirius092742 (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC) ==[reply]
(Discuss) – Flail → Flail (tool) – There doesn't seem to be a primary topic here, though, if anything, the weapon is the primary topic. I have no qualms with either this or moving the weapon to primary instead, but, either way, the tool clearly should not be here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Peter Wherrett → Pip Wilson – As per the recent RfC in 2023, specifically subtopic/question 1, the clear consensus regarding MOS:GENDERID is that for deceased persons, we still should principally use the most recently expressed gender identity prior to their death. We should therefore be using Pip Wilson to refer to the subject of this article, as that was the most recently expressed name and gender prior to her death. The key meat of that RfC: "Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?", to which the answer was "There is clear consensus to amend MOS:GENDERID as proposed.". GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Accolade (company) → Accolade, Inc. – This move was previously attempted but reverted on the grounds that the suffix-less title is more common. However, similar natural disambiguations are used for other company articles such as Apple Inc. and Twitter, Inc., where the full corporate name is less common but avoids resorting to a parenthetical title. WP:PARENDIS says that parenthetical disambiguation should be used when "none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title", which indicates natural disambiguation is the preferred option. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs)01:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mental disorders and LGBTQ → Mental health of LGBTQ people – The current name of "Mental disorders and LGBTQ" could give off the implication to some people when they see it linked on other pages that its insinuating that LGBTQ people have or are prone to having mental disorders because of their sexuality or that their sexuality or gender identity is/are a result of a mental disorder or other implications relating to causation which could be deemed offensive. "Mental health of LGBTQ people" could be a more neutral way of naming this page without such unnecessary implications. Helper201 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Discovery Channel (Canadian TV channel) → Discovery Channel (1994 Canadian TV channel) – On 1 January 2025, this will no longer be the Canadian Discovery Channel, instead, a new different channel will be stood up and become the Canadian Discovery, since the license for "Discovery" group was transferred to a different licensee, and BellGlobeMedia will lose the right to the name (hence it being replaced by USA Network Canada, with a different programming of content, Discovery shows moving to the new Discovery.) This current particular network was stood up on 31 December 1994. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Saskatchewan Progress Party → Saskatchewan Liberal Party – While the current name of the party is the Progress Party, it is not the most notable name this party had. Under its current name, the party has never had a single MLA and finished last in only election (2024) it ever ran in under its current name. A good precedent would be the Alberta Social Credit Party, its current name is the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association, but it is still known by its older, historic, more relevant name. Like the Alberta Socreds, the Saskatchewan Liberals were a prominent party under its historic name. They elected premiers and either led the government or led the opposition. An alternative proposal would be to WP:SPLIT the article into two articles: one for the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and one for the Saskatchewan Progress Party. This would be similar to how there are separate articles for the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party and the Yukon Party. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Madhouse in Maryland → Hail Maryland – Irrelevant title that should be changed to one that is more recognizable. Per WP:COMMONNAME. The commentating from the CBS broadcast does not completely defend the title under the subjected quote "It's a madhouse in Landover, Maryland!" where "Landover" causes a break in the article title. "Hail Maryland" also provides a scope of the article, similar to Hail Murray, which is suggested per WP:PRECISE. Vataxevader (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – SBB-CFF-FFS RAe TEE II → SBB RAe TEE II – I've began moving a couple of Swiss Federal Railway trains over the past few days from "SBB-CFF-FFS" article titles to simply use "SBB" (see e.g. Special:Diff/1262549849, Special:Diff/1262426828), which I believed to be uncontroversial at the time. However, then I came across the requested move in the exact opposite direction from a bit more than ten years ago (see above). I still think that moving all SBB-CFF-FFS titles to SBB titles is best for the following reasons: * SBB is the official english abbreviation for Swiss Federal Railways, a referenced claim which is reflected in its article and consitently implemented in it and many related ones. * Although SEO makes it hard to quantify precisely, to me SBB seems to be the abbreviation used more widely in english sources by a significant margin, both in news and scholarly sources. * There is precedent of multiple previous uncontested moves achieving the same by experienced rail wiki editor Mackensen on articles about trains that are newer and possibly more notable than the ones that have not been moved yet (see e.g. Special:Diff/1132376258 or Special:Diff/1137445337). These have not been contested in over a year. Likewise, my recent edits have not yet been contested. * The new SBB titles would be more concise, natural, and consistent with the main Swiss Federal Railways page and the aforementioned train pages that were already moved, while still ensuring recognizability and precision, fulfilling WP:TITLE I'm hoping to set a clear precedent with this RM should this topic come up again in the future. Should this RM be opposed, I propose that all the articles currently named using "SBB" should be moved to "SBB-CFF-FFS" instead to reflect the new consensus. YuniToumei (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 1999 Seattle WTO protests → Battle of Seattle – I'm opening a discussion for moving this title to "Battle of Seattle", as I believe it to be the common name for these protests. For years, this is the name by which I've heard these protests described. This appears to be born out in the sources too, as Google Scholar search results give 5,800 results for "Battle of Seattle";[25] while "Seattle WTO protests" gets only 659 results.[26] I can understand why the "Seattle WTO protests" title was used, as it sounds more dry and descriptive. But going by common name policy, I think "Battle of Seattle" is probably what we should be using for this. So as this is a potentially controversial move, I'm opening a discussion here. What are your thoughts on this? Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Toadspike[Talk]10:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Carl "Alfalfa" Switzer → Carl Switzer – Carl Switzer follows the standard naming convention and is unambiguous. Furthermore, it is the more WP:COMMONNAME[27] and (not a policy reason but still) it feels insulting to reduce a person to one role, even if it is by far their most famous one. We wouldn't move Mark Hamill to Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hammill. Fram (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Untitled I Know What You Did Last Summer sequel → I Know What You Did Last Summer (2025 film) – I could probably do a WP:BOLD move, but it was semi-borderline, so consensus may be best. After the most recent source added by Nyxaros, though, I'm more sure this is appropriate. Anyway, I included "Untitled" when the draft was first written because it could easily be interpreted that the sources at the time were referring to the franchise title instead of the title of this specific entry. As more sources came out, it has continuously been referred to as I Know What You Did Last Summer, and the recent production photos used in the most recent sourcing use this exact title (director chair[1] & clapperboard[2]). And the latest addition from THR specifically states that Sara Michelle Gellar inadvertently revealed the title when she posted a photo before the production did.[3] I think at this point the title has been confirmed, or at least the working title that should be used until the producers decide a change is better. -2pou (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ttongsul → Use of human feces in medicine – See talk thread above: Talk:Ttongsul#This document should be deleted for context. Edit: actually retarget to Use of human faeces in traditional medicine, per below discussion. I'm not attached to the target title btw; feel free to propose another. I've done more reading, and I've become increasingly confident that this was a real phenomenon (likely rare) that comes from Chinese medicine. Chinese medicine has even stranger phenomena, so this article isn't so preposterous. Making this article solely about the phenomenon in Korea doesn't really make sense; the current article's scope is mostly either about the phenomenon as a whole or its origins in China. There are a few brief mentions of attestations to it in Korea, but that's not enough for this scope to be appropriate. This article was based on the . However, the Japanese Wikipedia has had problems with basically overt racism and far right theories being promoted and unchallenged for many years. This is not just my opinion, it is widely shared even on the jawiki; they have been struggling to manage their extremists. If this move passes, poke me and I'll go ahead and rescope this article to be about the broad phenomenon. seefooddiet (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gascon dialect → Gascon (language variety) – The precise classifcation of Gascon is controversial. While most scholars consider it to be a dialect of Occitan, Posner and Sala note that it is less comprehensible than Catalan (which is typically classified separately from Occitan) to other southern Occitan speakers. Moreover, Gascon has a standardized variety, Aranese, with official status in the Val d'Aran region of Catalonia, which differs from the literary standard of Occitan. Kristol 2023 asserts that Gascon was "already considered a specific language in the Middle Ages," and Carles and Glessgen 2024 refer to Occitan and Gascon as "two languages." As the terms "language" and "dialect" are ambiguous and somewhat subjective, linguists tend to circumvent extralinguistic polemics by using the term "language variety" to refer to a linguistic system. By characterizing Gascon as a "dialect," the current title appears to clash with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality by favouring a traditional but contested view. The term "language variety" would be a more useful characterization, as it would avoid the use of the ambiguous term "dialect," which tends to evoke social, historical, and political considerations rather than strictly linguistic ones. Conocephalus (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.cyberdog958Talk18:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Junta of Communities of Castilla–La Mancha → Regional Government of Castilla–La Mancha – WP:COMMONNAME establishes that articles should use the "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". Currently, there is a situation in which names for articles on regional administrations in Spain use various, differing names that do not exactly conform to COMMONNAME: the Castilla–La Mancha is frequently referred to as "Regional Government" by such sources ([29][30]), with no source other than those based on the en.wiki using "Junta of Communities"; the same happens to Castile and León ("Regional Government" rather than "Junta", [31][32][33]); Galicia ("Regional Government" as opposed to "Xunta", [34][35][36][37]; note that President of the Regional Government of Galicia already uses the English common name); and, to some degree, Extremadura (the current title uses "Government", but the word "Junta" is typically translated into "Regional Government", [38][39][40]; as well as the addition of "Regional" adding consistency with the other articles as well as with President of the Regional Government of Extremadura and Regional Government of Andalusia). The aims of this RM are to 1) seek conformity of these articles' names (and related articles) with COMMONNAME, and 2) harmonize the names of institutions named similarly in their original languages but depicted in various different ways in the en.wiki, despite no clear exception to WP:ENGLISHTITLE applying. Impru20talk 09:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mazan rapes → Mass rape of Gisèle Pélicot – Due to her courage to waive anonymity, Gisèle Pélicot is more recognisable and prominent than the place these crimes were committed. (Also, a number of the rape incidents did not occur in Mazan, as indicated on the map in this article). I think "mass rape" emphasises the enormity of the case, but Rapes of Gisèle Pélicot may be equally valid. Thoughts? GnocchiFan (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Afrobeat → Afrofunk – Simply to avoid confusion as Afrobeat and Afrobeats are often used interchangeably. In fact majority, if not always Afrobeat is used to described Afrobeats. Eg. Here where Tems song was described as Afrobeat when it is not. A redirect can be kept however I believe this should not be called Afrobeat and instead be called the more common name. Also if Ngrams says Afrobeat is more common than Afrofunk it should still be moved as that could be pertaining to it's misusage when describing Afrobeats. This0k (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre → 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria – Consistency. This article should be named like 2024 Homs airstrikes or April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Because these air strikes are organised for enemy sides of the perpetrator's and some civillians killed in those air strikes. This title means that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, therefore we cannot seperate this air strike from other 190 air strikes. All of them are carried out within 2024. The content also mentions the death toll from other airstrikes. Also these airstrikes belongs to Hasakah province, Raqqa province and rural Aleppo. This title mentions 11 civilians in Raqqa province but how about other 6 civillian deaths in Hasakah province? If you look at death toll, military personnels also killed besides civillians and this means that Turkish Air Force didn't target civillians especially. Also it's ridiculous to target little amount of civillians in a village. If Turkish Air Force want to kill civillians, bombing big city centers is more efficient way like Israel did in Gaza Strip. Therefore that title is biased and we cannot named this event as a massacre just for killed civillians because more military personnels killed in these air strikes. Seondly, wikipedia there's a village named Mustariha and it's located at Idlib. However news says it's a village in the suburbs of Ain Issa. I cannot find location of the village. It's very interesting. All in all, this article should be moved to "2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria" However we can use northern Syria but I'm not sure about geographic naming. Note: If the title I propose is appropriate, the content should be revised accordingly, because it gives the impression that the attack was made specifically for this village and targeted especially civillians in this village.--Sabri76'talk17:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Priyanka Gandhi → Priyanka Gandhi Vadra – Almost all reliable news sources in India and abroad - and her own social media profiles use the name Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. She also uses it in her campaign material. Using her maiden name does not make sense for consistency in the article aswell. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink) The comments from there have been reproduced below for convenience. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Direct quantum chemistry → Electron–nuclear dynamics – Öhrn and Deumens (2005) refers to this theory as "Electron nuclear dynamics" (e.g. Section 2.5 is titled "Minimal electron nuclear dynamics (END)"), not "direct quantum chemistry". Subsequent papers use both "electron–nuclear dynamics" and "electron nuclear dynamics", but the former appears to be more common. Preimage (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>14:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Debbie Mathers → Debbie Nelson – Debbie Nelson is the name her autobiography was published under and is used in the majority of headlines about her death[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] List of results:[50] It appears by far to be her WP:COMMONNAME, with an exception being this Guardian article which refers to her as Debbie Mathers three times (including the title) and Debbie Nelson once. According to The Independent, "She was known as Debbie Mathers at the time of Eminem's birth, but reverted to her maiden name Debbie Nelson after realizing she had become famous through her son’s lyrics."[51], with another article implying she was formerly known as Debbie Mathers.[52]Rolling Stone says she was going by Debbie Mathers-Briggs in the early 2000s[53] which is backed up by a contemporary article by the BBC.[54]Billboard and the BBC use the name Debbie Mathers to caption an image of her in 2005 since that's the name she was using then.[55][56]Miklogfeather (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – First London → First London (1997) – It may be very early days, but First have just announced they are returning to London operations with the acquisition of RATP Dev's London operations (incorporating Dev Transit London, London United and London Sovereign).[4] Given the scope of the original First operation before it was broken up in 2013, reviving this article for the new operation might be a bridge too far and bound to cause some confusion. As such, unless anyone has a better name proposal for the article, I propose the above move with the option for First London (2025) to incorporate the ex-RATP operations. Hullian111 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Hullian111 (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Makhzumi dynasty → Sultanate of Shewa – or Sultanate of Shoa. This would revert a bold move of 1 August 2022 by Magherbin, who provided an edit summary saying "Most common usage", but did not say what this impression of common usage was based upon. Searching for "Makhzumi dynasty" on Google Scholar yields only 12 results (one of which is a PDF copy of the Wikipedia article), but 21 results for "Sultanate of Shewa" and 23 results for "Sultanate of Shoa". Overall, there don't seem to be very many sources for this topic, and its treatment on Wikipedia seems to have been contentious and heavily influenced by currently banned users, so I suggest exercising caution when interpreting information found about the subject. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nonpartisan blanket primary → Jungle primary – WP:COMMONNAME. Numerous sources call it a "jungle primary" these days. This was discussed about 15 years ago when the article was new and the topic was actually being litigated in the Supreme Court. Long story short, the "blanket primary" was ruled illegal, and the SCOTUS in that ruling did refer to a hypothetical "non-partisan blanket primary" to illustrate what would be likely legal and similar. 15 years later they have made that system and it is usually called a "Jungle primary". We see this even in these old sources on this article, where many of them don't even use the word "blanket" in the whole source. Naturally, "jungle" has not been really liked by proponents, and thus they often times will call them "Top four" or "Top two" primaries, but most instances where that verbiage is favored, they will often early in the source say "also called jungle primary". At least for now, the common sense move here should be to retitle the page to "Jungle primary", until and unless there's a better and more used catchall for the "Top [number]" format. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Expectation of privacy (United States) → Reasonable expectation of privacy – Adjusted proposal per the outcome of the one above. This legal doctrine originated with the Katz ruling in 1967 and subsequent cases using that as a precedent have adopted the more precise phrasing "reasonable expectation of privacy". Also, the article's text as developed over the years focuses on the precise legal doctrine rather than a vague value. Note that this particular proposal would require a round-robin move due to an old mistargeted redirect, which I have the permissions to do. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Killing of Jordan Neely → Death of Jordan Neely – Article title needs to match up to date RS coverage Up to date RS wavers between continuing to present this as a confirmed killing or playing it safe and describing this as a death, without making a direct statement either way on Penny killing Neely. While some RS like BBC seem to adopt the former position, others go towards the latter position, likely because this point was a central area of dispute in the trial, and was part of jury instructions, which in turn led to a not guilty verdict. RS coverage of this issue typically steers away from taking sides on either affirming the Medical Examiner's position that it was a homicide or the Pathologist testimony casting doubt on that finding. Examples of RS that carefully attribute claims of what caused Neely's death rather than readily describing it conclusively as a killing, and typically utilize the terms "death" over "killing" include: The New York Times: Over the course of the trial, Mr. Penny’s legal team has pushed back at the assertion that their client’s restraint was the cause of Mr. Neely’s death. And the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely was central to the monthlong debate between the prosecutors and defense lawyers.Associated Press: Contradicting a city medical examiner’s finding, a pathologist hired by the defense said Neely died not from the chokehold but from the combined effects of K2, schizophrenia, his struggle and restraint, and a blood condition that can lead to fatal complications during exertion.ABC News: The city's medical examiner concluded Penny's chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system. A number of talk sections have raised the issue of this wiki article's title being inappropriate. Given the coverage of the most recent RS in light of new details from the trial, the right move would be to play it safe like many RS are doing now and label this as a death and attribute the claims of its cause, rather than affirmatively describing this as a killing. Even sources that otherwise use language that describe the death as a result of Penny's actions, like the aforementioned BBC article, decline to conclusively take the side of the medical examiner or the pathologist when focusing on the specific topic of cause of death in detail. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gaza Strip famine → Famine in the Gaza Strip – Feedback from the recent AfD was that the article definitely needs to stay, but it could make sense to change the title. The vast majority of this article discusses the ongoing crisis and the imminent threat of potential famine in Gaza, but not an actual famine that has occurred. No official organization has declared a famine, and the few claims of actual famine that have been made at various times have generally been individuals expressing their personal opinions in informal statements such as television interviews. Reliable sources overwhelmingly do not characterize the situation in Gaza as a famine, nor do they use the phrase "the Gaza Strip famine"; this is strong evidence that "Gaza Strip famine" is not the appropriate common name for this topic. Many reliable sources use some variation of "famine in the Gaza Strip"[58][59][60] (in the context of the risk of impending famine). This wording is much more appropriate for the WP:SCOPE of the article, which focuses on the current conditions, people's reactions, and the imminent threat of famine. There is also precedent across Wikipedia, in other instances of ongoing food security crises that haven't been officially declared famines, to use the title "Famine in...", such as Famine in northern Ethiopia (2020–present) and Famine in Yemen (2016–present). I propose we follow that format here as well and rename the article Famine in the Gaza Strip. Stonkaments (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Feeglgeef (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Leonid Kadeniuk → Leonid Kadenyuk – The article itself constantly refers to Kadenyuk. "Leonid Kadenyuk" is his name on Britannica and in several sources. "Leonid Kadenyuk" gets 5,740 results on Google while "Leonid Kadeniuk" gets 2,830. The Y seems to be the correct spelling. It also follows the custom of similar names like Igor Kornelyuk. Evedawn99 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.charlotte👸♥ 07:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Feeglgeef (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gout Gout → Guot Guot – According to this source, during a translation from Arabic the family name was incorrectly spelled as "Gout" when it should be "Guot" (pronounced as "Gwot"). However, it should be noted that the official records have not been changed, so should Wikipedia go by the official record or by the real name? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Dobeles apriņķis → Dobele County – I believe that the common names of the counties of Latvia are as follows. These counties remained largely unchanged for around 200 years, even though they belonged to different states with varying official languages. Many of these counties were originally established as Foo Captaincy (German: Hauptmannschaft Foo). Later, they became Foo County (German: Kreis Foo). In Latvian, they have always been called apriņķi (singular: apriņķis), in Russian uezd, and in Polish powiat. The issue arose when I attempted to rename the corresponding categories, but users Ymblanter and Marcocapelle questioned whether apriņķi could truly be considered the common name for these counties. Cuvaj (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Quinn brothers' killings → Murder of the Quinn brothers – Garfield Gilmour was convicted of murder, therefore the page should be titled as murder, not killing. While his conviction was downgraded to manslaughter, it was not because the crime was not deemed to be murder; rather it was because he had only driven the killers to the scene, and the court found that he himself did not have murderous intent, and was not aware that the others did.[5] However, the actual bombers were found to have acted with murderous intent (by using a larger than usual bomb that would be expected to cause death or grievous bodily harm), therefore the crime should be considered a murder.--Tulzscha (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story. The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true. So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Folk baroque → Chamber folk – As Chamber folk redirects here, the name should be changed as that is the common wording used in articles and not folk baroque or even baroque guitar. I'm not saying it isn't used but not as often as Chamber folk. It is also a genre and should be treated as such therefore the article will need to be edited to showcase that but as this l8nks to multiple articles that say Chamber folk, including Windswept Adan, this currently featured article I don't see the point of keeping it as Folk baroque. This0k (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Feeglgeef (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War → Threatening statements in the Russo-Ukrainian War – The name of this article and the use of "red lines" elsewhere in this article is misleading and a personal feeling of the article creator. Looking at Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian red lines the table includes 24 supposed "red lines" with links to sources included. The sources for these 24 "red lines" do not at all support the claim that the 24 items are "red lines": they are simply "threats", "demands" or other statements from Russian officials, and the term "red line" is not even mentioned by Russian officials. The article begins by an explanation of the term "red line" but then it goes on to list any "threat" or other "demand" as a "red line" without any support for the claim that it is a "red line". It is as if any news article that included the words "red line" is used as a source. A correct source would include a direct quote from a Russian official that includes the words "red line" -- otherwise it is just a "threat", "demand", or other statement, etc. Along with the article name all the "red lines" not supported by primary sources, direct quotes from officials, etc. should be changed to "threats" or other more accurate words. Examples of misleading use of term "red line": * Note 46: ** Used as a source for "red line": "Not to supply Patriot Missile system" ** The source does not support the claim of a "red line" at all, not even a simple threat, it only includes a statement from Russian official. All it includes is: "Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev warned NATO against providing Ukraine with Patriots and denounced the Atlantic alliance as a “criminal entity” for delivering arms to what he called “Ukrainian fanatics.”" * Note 36: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike-harder-if-longer-range-missiles-supplied-2022-06-05/ ** Used as a source for "red line": "No long-range missiles" ** This article does not even mention the term "red line". It simply includes threats from Vladimir Putin such as: "If longer-range missiles are supplied, "we will strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting," Putin told the Rossiya-1 state television channel in an interview." * Note 39: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-tanks-macedonia-thanks/31976738.html ** Used as a source for "red line": "No supplying old Soviet tanks to Ukraine" ** The source only lists a vague statement from Russian official: "On August 3, Russia said it considered North Macedonia's donation of T-72 tanks to Ukraine "a major mistake that will only help the criminal actions of the Kyiv regime."" * Note 48: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/20/europe/russia-warning-f-16-jets-ukraine-intl/index.html ** Used as a source for "red line": "No F-16 fighter jets" ** The source lists only a garden-variety threat: "Russia’s deputy foreign minister has warned Western countries of “enormous risks” if Ukraine is provided with F-16 fighter jets, Russian state media TASS reported Saturday." * Note 32: https://www.evelyn.com/insights-and-events/insights/will-markets-take-the-strain-from-the-russia-ukraine-crisis/ ** Used as a source for "red line": "NATO troops and missiles to be withdrawn from Russia's western border", "NATO to stop eastward expansion and reverses back to position in 1997". ** The source does not support this claim, it only lists "demands" of Vladimir Putin along with the word "red line": "Putin has issued three key demands to Western powers, marking his red lines in negotiations. First, he demanded that Ukraine should never be allowed to join NATO. Second, the organisation should halt its eastward expansion and roll back to its position in 1997." There are many more similar sources that do not support the claims in this article. If these listed "red lines" are supposed to be "red lines" based on the sources cited then any simple threat, demand, etc would be a "red line". It is as if this article is trying to conflate "red lines" and any threatening statement from a Russian official. Bluikkso (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia02:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – HomeKit → Apple Home – Proposing page be renamed Apple Home to reflect the name of the platform, whereas the current name (HomeKit) is one of two supported software frameworks that work inside the platform. The intro sentence should also be rewritten to something like "Apple Home is a smart home platform that uses the HomeKit and Matter software frameworks. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gay sex roles → Top, bottom, and versatile – This article was moved from Top, bottom and versatile in 2022 by another editor without discussion. As the previous RM has shown, the current title is not ideal, and the proposed title in that RM was also imprecise, since these roles can also apply to heterosexual or lesbian couples as per the sources in the article, so I suggest moving the article back to the original title. Alternatively a merge with Top, bottom, switch since a lot of the topic really has an overlap and I think could be explained in one article could also still be a viable option, which just needs to explain that sometimes the terms are used purely as a sexual position, and sometimes in more of a BDSM context, noting we do have Dominance and submission that goes into more detail about that as well already. Raladic (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Larries → Larry Stylinson – Since it's been almost two and a half years since the no consensus close of the previous move request, I thought it might be time to bring this discussion back up again. A good article title is consistent, and all the conspiracy theory articles that I have examined (see Category:Conspiracy theories) use the title of the theory, not the believers. For example, there is no anti-vaxxer article; there is only a Anti-vaccine activism article. There is no Flat-earther article; there is only a Modern flat Earth beliefs article. Other ships (see Category:Slash fiction) also use the name of the ship, not the fandom, albeit this is a unique topic in that it is about real people. In the last discussion, I heard that this article is somehow different in that the scholarship is more about the believers than the theory, but that isn't exactly true. For one, there is also scholarship documenting the actual theory. But also, the psychology of the believers is also central to other conspiracy theory articles (e.g. Modern flat Earth beliefs § Sociological explanations for counterfactual beliefs), which all still use the name of the theory. Additionally, "Larry Stylinson" is certainly more precise. "Larries" could potentially refer to multiple "Larry"s or "Larrie"s, or, as the ngram viewer shows, industrial/mining equipment. Although one could argue that the ship is the more common interpretation, it certainly hasn't been historically (and we aim to avoid WP:RECENTISM), and changing the title to "Larry Stylinson" would remove all possible ambiguity. BappleBusiness[talk] 22:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Backbone → Backbone (disambiguation) – I am reopening this move discussion as I disagree with the previous rationale for withdrawing it. Even if it is not primary by pageviews, it is easily primary by longterm significance. The original meaning is obvious: back + bone, bones in the back of an animal. Backbones have existed for eons, while computers have not. Apple does not go to the software company either, and suggesting backbones, a major part of human anatomy, are equivalently primary to a bunch of wires and a router is ludicrous to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – In Search of Lost Time → À la recherche du temps perdu – This is the most common name for the work in English-language scholarly sources; it is the name by which this book is best known; and "In Search of Lost Time" is the least common of the three common names in English sources (with "Remembrance of Things Past" being the more common English translation. Previous arguments against this move argued that Wikipedia's strict input made using diacritics impractical; that was in 2010 and this problem no longer exists; as such, we should move to the most common name in English sources per WP:UE. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) – Churubusco Jr. - Sr. High School → Churubusco Jr.–Sr. High School – or simply Churubusco High School (which is more concise and still seems unambiguous and more likely to be the informal common name). This is an expression of a range from Junior High to Senior High, or perhaps a coupling of a Junior High School and a Senior High School. It seems like it should use a dash or ampersand, not a hyphen with spaces on both sides of it. Alternatively, it is also often called simply Churubusco High School. It could also spell the words out ("Junior–Senior") or omit the dots ("Jr–Sr" or "Jr – Sr" or even "Jr-Sr" seems better than what we now have). But a range should not be expressed with a spaced hyphen. (I can't really think of any appropriate use of a spaced hyphen, despite that we have 800+ articles that currently include that.) The school's website has Churubusco Jr-Sr High School and refers to it as Churubusco High School in a caption, and has Churubusco Jr/Sr High School on its sports schedule. There was a previous RM that moved it away from Churubusco High School to its current title in in 2016. Nevertheless, the Churubusco, Indiana, article simply refers to it as Churubusco High School. — BarrelProof (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of census divisions of Ontario → List of administrative divisions of Ontario – 95% of this article content is *about* administrative divisions, not about census divisions, and I'd argue that administrative divisions are a lot more important than how the census is subdivided. Currently the page *lists* census divisions but categorizes them by their form of administration which is strange, and leads to confusing results for Brant/Brantford and Haldimand/Norfolk. A separate page about census divisions could also be created although I think just specifying within this page where there are differences would be sufficient. Somatochlora (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.charlotte👸♥ 20:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Mac Gargan → Scorpion (Mac Gargan) – "Mac Gargan" should be renamed to "Scorpion (Marvel Comics)" to reflect his more iconic and widely recognized identity, consistent with naming conventions for other Marvel characters (ex. Spider-Man, which exclusively talks about Peter Parker, despite other incarnations) ModlordD (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ugrians → Ob-Ugrians – "Ugrians" is an ambiguous term. It is often understood to include both Hungarians and the Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi), or to refer to a some theorized proto-Ugric community. For examples, see this book, this Britannica entry, and this study. However, we don't really need an article about Ugrians in the broad sense, since it is just an umbrella term with not much non-linguistic content, and the linguistic content is naturally covered by Ugric languages. Occasionally, "Ugrian" is used synonymously with "Ob-Ugrian". See Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer's book. Article about Ob-Ugrians would be useful since they are very closely related, but a better title for that article would be Ob-Ugrians per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Ugrians on the other hand should be made into a disambiguation page which would include links to Ugric languages and to Ob-Ugrians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gateway, Inc. → Gateway 2000 – As this is a defunct company and is looked on retrospectively, I think Gateway 2000 is the COMMONNAME of the subject. The company seems to be better known in retrospect and remembered under its original name with the "2000" added to "Gateway". Sceeegt (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE15:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(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)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Keiki-dō → Keiki Province – I think "Provinces" may be more appropriate, but still not sure. I moved all the other Korea prefecture pages from "-dō" to " Prefecture" following the category name, but @robertsky pointed out " Province" may be more appropriate. "Prefecture" has kind of a loose definition, per Prefecture and Prefectures of Japan. The nature of prefectures in various countries differs; it's not really clear to me how these differ from provinces, esp given that colonial Korea was governed differently from Japan. Both "prefecture" and "province" seem to be variously attested to for Korean provinces (as well as the use of transliterations of Korean names for Korean places during the colonial period). English terminology for Korean history is notoriously inconsistent. Reading Prefectures of Japan, it seems like "道" is also used for prefectures, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that it would extend to Korea. Provinces of Japan seems to suggest that Japan itself adopted the prefecture system in the late 19th century, but that doesn't necessarily cover Korea. However, recent RS on the colonial period seem to use "province" for this period (although these all seem to write from Korea-centric perspectives; using Korean-language terms for concepts during the colonial period). * [63] * [64] * [65] * [66] Edit: more sources (see below for my analysis of the situation) * [67] * [68] * [69] * [70] *[71] * [72] (this book uses Korean names for concepts that existed before the colonial period, including the provinces, and Japanese names for everything created during) In short, I think there's a WP:COMMONNAME argument to use "Province" instead of "Prefecture". Either of the two is certainly better than the previous "-dō". seefooddiet (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia07:25, 24 November 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) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:25, 15 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) — Relisting.—Compassionate727(T·C)13:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
