Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Click here to purge this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

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

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

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

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

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=reason for move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Most sources list him as a feature. More citations needed. 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: here are some more sources of him being credited as a main artist: https://open.spotify.com/track/2tudvzsrR56uom6smgOcSf?si=90vqYEc1Rimvw6wVhBKraA&context=spotify%3Aplaylist%3A37i9dQZF1DX0XUsuxWHRQd, https://tidal.com/track/352641780 (you can look at the album here to see for track 6), and even the YouTube channel of one of the artists of the song himself: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9bKBAA22Go. Thank you. 98.6.144.50 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources list him as a feature. More citations needed. 162 etc. (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: here are some more sources of him being credited as a main artist: https://open.spotify.com/track/0hKtu53OlIFXVuYkZwcn3o?si=ZtnfMacUSvKHorJz6TkMEA&context=spotify%3Aplaylist%3A37i9dQZF1DX0XUsuxWHRQd, https://tidal.com/track/352641783 (you can look at the album here to see for track 9), and even the YouTube channel of one of the artists of the song himself: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=onP2eoO7byc. Thank you. 98.6.144.50 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no sources cited. 162 etc. (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This film is listed as "The Turkey" at The Movie Database. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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 28 March 2024" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 28 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 28 March 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 March 2024

– why Example (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 28 March 2024

– why Example (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 76 discussions have been relisted.

March 28, 2024

  • (Discuss)Joint Light Tactical VehicleJoint Light Tactical Vehicle competition – There are basically two extremely similar articles about the JLTV. Actually three. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle resembles an article about the development program, while Oshkosh L-ATV is about the JLTV selected for production. There is enough content for two articles, but I would guess that most people searching for "JLTV" would expect to find an article about the production vehicle than the competition that produced it. Background: "L-ATV" was the marketing name for the truck originally designed by Oshkosh for the JLTV program, which Oshkosh won in 2015. Presumably Oshkosh did not wish to tie the vehicle's success to the JLTV program, and so branded it as Each branch of the U.S. military calls it the "JLTV". Oshkosh usually refers to the L-ATV as the JLTV, although very occasionally Oshkosh will market a variant of the JLTV as an L-ATV on their own initiative. Here is a press release where Oshkosh announces the sale of "JLTVs", not "L-ATVs", to European countries. AM General will take over production of the JLTV from Oshkosh at the end of the year. They will be calling their version the JLTV A2. If this move is carried out there should be a section about the competition with a pointer to Joint Light Tactical Vehicle competition. Schierbecker (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ShrovetidePre-Lent – This article was originally named 'Pre-Lenten Season' and this is what it describes. It was renamed 'Shrovetide' in 2016, based on a single reference that gives an incorrect definition (Gardner 2008). Shrovetide is however only the final three days of this period: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'The period comprising Quinquagesima Sunday and the two following days, ‘Shrove’ Monday and Tuesday'. Shrovetide is identical to Carnival, which already has its own article. The pre-Lenten period is variously called 'pre-Lent', 'pre-Lenten period', 'pre-Lenten season', 'Septuagesima—Sexagesima—Quinquagesima', 'Septuagesima', 'Gesimatide', 'weeks before Lent' and probably other things – since it isn't a proper season, it doesn't have a formal name. (Cf. 'Vorpassionszeit' in German, 'Domenica di Settuagesima' in Italian.) 'Pre-Lent' is the most descriptive and neutral name that I can find in current scholarship, but I can see arguments for some of the other labels. AndrewNJ (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). AndrewNJ (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Death of Nex BenedictSuicide of Nex Benedict – I am formally requesting a move for this page and initiating a move discussion. The Oklahoma medical examiner released a full autopsy report which states that Nex Benedict died of suicide. Nex's family does not dispute the factual basis of the suicide determination, but does not "want the ruling of suicide to overshadow other findings in the report", including details of injuries sustained from the bathroom altercation which the Benedicts feel "contradict allegations of the assault on Nex being insignificant". At this point, because Nex's family, the medical examiner, and reliable sources describing the incident agree on the suicide determination, viewpoints stating that Nex's death was not a suicide are WP:FRINGE. Thus, per WP:NCDEATH, the title must be updated accordingly. Because this is the full report, new details are unlikely to emerge from this point forward. This addresses many of the concerns about rapidly changing information raised earlier after the release of the summary report. Addendum: Many of the replies here are claiming that Benedict's family does contest the ruling per a Washington Post report. This report seems to be incorrect -- it is the only source I could find to make a claim, and it is directly contradicted by reporting from the associated press which states "They did not dispute the coroner’s report finding of a suicide." [4] Most sources seem to state that the family disputes the characterization of Nex's injuries as not severe; not that the family disputes them as the cause of death. Of course we can't cite our own original research in the article. But take a look at the statement for yourself. [5] Does the family dispute suicide is the cause of death? I think not. Peter L Griffin (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 27, 2024

  • (Discuss)Callie and MarieSquid Sisters – I request this move based on two rationales. First off, these two pages largely concern fictional idol groups and their performances as a whole, rather than a simple collection of unrelated characters. In the series, the groups act as a mascot of each titles (Squid Sisters for Splatoon and Off the Hook for Splatoon 2) with a huge emphasis on their activities together. So it seems the idol groups as article title makes the topic clearer. The second point is that Nintendo itself prefers referring to the idols this way officially. To name a few: * Splatoon Base is an official website providing factoids of the Splatoon universe. This has a Music section that introduces its fictional music groups and they have their pages as Squid Sisters and Off the Hook. * Nintendo of America runs an advertising program called Squid Research Lab, usually shared through social media. I'll focus on its official Tumblr run from 2014 to 2021 because it can be viewed without login. This blog posted news for Splatoon 2 during its lifespan and their coverage of Off the Hook preferred to address them as their group name on topics like concerts or DLC. The time it called attention to the individual characters, it was when it announced amiibo toys for both groups and each character could be purchased separately ([15], [16]). * Nintendo of America's YouTube channel has uploaded the soundtrack of Splatoon 3, which is credited as in-universe songs from the groups. Both the Squid Sisters (City of Color, Tomorrow's Nostalgia Today) and Off the Hook (Color Pulse, We're So Back) are referred to as their group names, not "Callie and Marie" or "Pearl and Marina". * The Pearl and Marina article mentions their appearance as Super Smash Bros. Ultimate spirit. They appear as "Off the Hook". [17] There were a few attempts to move Pearl and Marina to Off the Hook (Splatoon) with one revert citing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Given the official sources above and news outlets following the suit, however, it's clear "Squid Sisters" and "Off the Hook" are the primary names. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)PantiRory O'Neill – The article is about O'Neill himself, rather than the character Panti Bliss. O'Neill is not trans; he merely has a stage name that he uses in his drag act. In his everyday/business life, he goes by Rory O'Neill and identifies as a man. Panti Bliss is a stage act, which is only one aspect of his life. I propose renaming this article in O'Neill's own name. Gatepainter (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)NovogrudokNavahrudak – Belarusian is the native language of Belarus, so the name should be transliterated from that native language. --W (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Greater HelsinkiHelsinki metropolitan area1. Some guidelines in WP:NCGN, but specifically "metropolitan" in the USA guidelines: WP:USPLACE. 2. Helsinki metropolitan area is by far the most popular way to describe the larger urban area surrounding a large city. In Europe, for example, only a few articles use the word "greater" to describe a metropolitan area. 3. In the Anglo-Saxon language, Greater Helsinki can be sometimes used, but on official (Finnish municipality) websites this form is only the third most used. Much more popular are Helsinki metropolitan area and sometimes Helsinki region. For example, Finnish language documents never use the term "Suur-" (Greater), but either "pääkaupunkiseutu" (Capital region) or "Helsingin seutu" (Helsinki region). Peltimikko (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 26, 2024

  • (Discuss)Negev desert road ambushNegev Desert road ambush – Should Negev Desert not be capitalized? I see it appears twice capitalized and once lowercase in the Negev article. If we're referring to the Negev region and not the desert then maybe 'desert-road' should be hyphenated to make it clear that we're talking about a desert road in the Negev region and not a road in the Negev Desert? Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tricky (musician)Tricky (rapper) – The opening lines of this article say "Tricky, is a British record producer, and rapper". Rapping seems to be his main role in the work he has done. I also do not see anything in the article to say that he is actually a musician because there is no mention of him playing any instruments. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Omar Suleiman (politician)Omar Suleiman – Clearly the main topic, longtime intelligence chief of Egypt and strongman of Mubarak regime. The other names in the disambiguation page dwarf in comparison; one activist with, if at all, only local significance, one wedding singer who got Youtube viral once and that's it, and some young entrepreneur, the redirect views show that no one is looking for his page, but are looking for the Egyptian Suleiman (1 vs 2). Plus the Egyptian Suleiman's page is more interlinked and crossreferenced within Wikipedia, further indicating the topic is much more significant than the others. (8 Wikipedia links for the entrepreneur and 299 for the Egyptian intelligience chief. (50, 78 for the two others with signs of the plague of paid editing for the activist to exaggerate significance, e.g. even linked by the page 1986 in the United States and LeBron James!) Absolutely do not understand how this was moved in the first place and passed as an uncontroversial move / technical request. This is the Omar Suleiman 99% of people would be looking to learn about. A note at the top of the page for other uses of Omar Suleiman amply fulfills the purpose of distinguishing. Yabroq (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 25, 2024

  • (Discuss)Reunification HighwayPyongyang–Kaesong Motorway – Highway Name is no longer "Reunification Highway" in Korea. Fundamental shift in policy towards the South from the North "makes reunification impossible" (from the DPRK Perspective) and subsequently assumes references to reunification will be nullified. EVaDiSh (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)ICON ParkIcon ParkWP:TITLETM / MOS:ALLCAPS / MOS:TM. As far as I can tell, "ICON" is just all-caps promotional styling for the word "icon". The two cited Attractions Magazine sources use "Icon" rather than "ICON". So do this Orlando Weekly article, this AOL UK article, this Florida Politics article, etc.. The "about us" information on the amusement park's website just says the amusement park is "iconic", giving no explanation of the term as an abbreviation. Even if some unabbreviated form exists somewhere, it is not frequently provided and not all-capped consistently in independent reliable sources. Some sources do use the all-caps, but it is a mixture, and Wikipedia style is to avoid all-caps in such situations. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Véra NabokovaVéra Nabokov – According to Stacy Schiff's biography Véra, Véra signed her name "Véra Nabokov", "V. Nabokov", or "Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov":

    In the early 1950s those letters to which Véra did lend her signature as well as her voice went out from "Véra Nabokov" or from a more neutral "V. Nabokov." As Véra Nabokov she might write, for example, to ask if a publisher might consider adding a reprint edition of Bend Sinister to its list [...] By 1956, when she had begun a testy exchange with Maurice Girodias about perceived violations of the Lolita contract, she settled on a signature that seemed to correspond to her identity, or nonidentity. From these years, and just in time, emerged "Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov," who in her formal Old World script would sign "Véra Nabokov" above her married name, which she typed, in parentheses, as if to mute the potency of the alias.

    — Stacy Schiff, Véra (1999)
    The spelling "Nabokov" dominates in reliable English-language sources. Ngrams are very clear. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of Korean films of 1919–1948List of films produced in Korea under Japanese rule – I don't agree with the 1948 cutoff as a threshold. See Cinema of Korea; I think if anything 1945 would make more sense as a dividing line. The Korean Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia agrees with me (;; both mean "[List of] films produced in Korea under Japanese rule"). My guess the original rationale for the 1948 line is that North Korea/South Korea were only officially established in 1948. But they de facto existed from 1945 to 1948, and commonly went by those names. I don't think their official establishment is such an important distinction for us to use such an arbitrary dividing line. 1947 and 1949 in North/South Korea were very similar. 1944 and 1946 were extremely different. Furthermore, I'd argue North and South Korean cinema were divided even just months after the 1945 division; North Korea's first film was the 1946 newsreel Our Construction, and thereafter its major films were basically all government-produced or approved. South Korean cinema was still largely produced by private citizens. If this move happens, I can do the rescope. I'll fit it into the formats of Lists of South Korean films and List of North Korean films. Just tag me once it's done. toobigtokale (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Al DifaAl-Difa' – ' is essential because this would change the meaning of the word from الدفاع The Defense => to الضفة The Bank [of a river]. A quick google search shows this is more prevalently used: [31]. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)John Kennedy (disambiguation)John Kennedy – Since the election and rise in prominence of U.S. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana -- who is known nationally as "John Kennedy" without any clarifying middle initial -- I argue that the title "John Kennedy" is a case of WP:NOPRIMARY. Consider the following evidence: *40% of outgoing traffic from this page goes to Sen. Kennedy of Louisiana's page -- and this is from when he was the 27th John Kennedy mentioned on the page, before I moved him above the fold. Only 20% goes to JFK, and 10% goes to JFK Jr. (who was in the middle of the other section before I moved him above the fold as well).[32] *When you google "John Kennedy," the first search result, most of the first page results, and the infobox refer to Sen. Kennedy of Louisiana. [33] WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us we should principally consider usage and long-term significance. Kennedy of Louisiana wins the former, JFK wins the latter. This conflict makes a compelling argument that there is no primary topic. For those who have never heard of Kennedy of Louisiana, don't like him, or think he isn't important, please refer to WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT -- Kennedy of Louisiana gets more than double the outgoing traffic from this page than JFK! Another thing I'll note: part of the reason why "John Kennedy" is so ambiguous is because the 35th President's common name is John F. Kennedy; almost everyone calls him this, JFK, or Kennedy, but rarely John Kennedy. The omission of the middle initial is therefore perhaps more indicative that maybe the person searching this term isn't looking for the 35th president than in an alternate scenario where the president also went primarily by "John Kennedy". Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 24, 2024

  • (Discuss)Vibert DouglasAllie Vibert Douglas – This is the name she more commonly went by. The claim that she went by her middle name is confusing, and refers to her switching her last and middle name (Douglas Vibert -> Vibert Douglas), not removing her first. Infwood (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "Gaza border protest" gives off 6,360 results, while googling the "Great March of Return" gives a whooping 206,000 results, including overwhelming majority of RS! Sources provided earlier: The Guardian, BBC, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontiers, a human rights journal, United Nations, and many scholarly works [38], [39]. New sources since then: Vice, The Lancet , The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Sage Journals, Middle East Eye, Reporters Without Borders, Carnegie, Democracy Now, Btselem, Dawn media. Precedent: Only a minority of these RS say Great March of Return in quotes; my response to that counter argument is The Troubles example: they are still being referred to in quotes even 25 years later by reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Reuters and Washington Post. Also Kristallnacht [40]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2024

  • (Discuss)ZTF J203349.8+322901.1Janus (star) – In short, common name, simpler, and more plausible search term. I believe no one will search for this star as "ZTF J203349.8+322901.1", this name is simply too big and complex. The nickname "Janus" is well documented and several sources cite this object by that name. The new name is also in line with WP:STARNAMES, which says that proper and common names should be preferred. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Where is Kate?2023–24 public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales – or ALT1 2023–24 health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales. Continued dissatisfaction has been expressed about the title of the article, and I believe it is already generally agreed that the title should be changed, so let's do that. Speculation and conspiracy theories and controversy have been part of what has happened during her absence from public appearances, but I do not see a reason to discuss them in the article's title. Those things are basically a result of her notable extended absence from public appearances and the inadequate explanation offered during that period of time rather than being a separate subject, and Wikipedia discourages article titles focused on controversy rather than substance. I suggest including the timeframe since everyone is absent from the public once in a while, whereas this article is about a specific period of absence. I originally suggested just mentioning 2024, since my impression is that her absence wasn't really notable until then, but it's true that it began in 2023, so I have included 2023 in the described date range. This is not a deletion discussion. This is a discussion of what title the article should have if it is not deleted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gentleman detectiveAmateur detective – Amateur detective redirects here. The current article title is stretched, thus we get nonsense like "The daughter of a clergyman, Miss Marple is not from the aristocracy or landed gentry, but is quite at home amongst them." Cormoran Strike, not a gentleman. Inspector Morse, neither a gentleman nor an amateur. cagliost (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)MartaMarta (disambiguation) – There are no other articles for people who go by just Marta. She is 100% the most famous Marta. She is the only Marta on Wikipedia. The only competition for this title is the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page should be labeled as such, while Marta's article is titled concisely by her name. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Snowy Mountains AirportCooma–Snowy Mountains Airport – Page was moved to this namespace by an autoconfirmed user in good faith per WP:BOLD under the rationale of WP:COMMONNAME. I disagree with this move and would like to seek WP:EDITCON for reasons stated below: *Under private ownership, this airport has been branded as "Snowy Mountains Airport", However, most sources actually cited as references in the article, both current and historic, refer to either Cooma Airport, or Cooma - Snowy Mountains Airport. Of the 14 sources currently referenced, only 2 refer to the airport exclusively as "Snowy Mountains Airport" and these are self-published by the airport operator, suggesting a rebranding for promotional reasons which may raise issues with WP:PROMO. *Although Google does return more hits for the specific search term "Snowy Mountains Airport" than either of the above, I note many of these results still preface this with "Cooma" when viewing where the term actually appears in the text, including 3 of the top 10 matches. *The Qantas booking system was using "Cooma" as the destination as of last season (although marketed as flights to the Snowy Mountains). *As a pilot who has operated to this airport, all radio calls, flight planning documents and associated navigation are referred to as "Cooma". *Disambiguation - Originally, the public airport was referred to as Cooma Airport, the Snowy Mountains was added to differentiate it from the private Cooma–Polo Flat Airport, which was historically the base for the Snowy Mountains Authority's aviation ops to a network of airstrips throughout the Snowy Mountains. Although historic, there was a period of time where Polo Flat was colloquially known as the Snowy Mountains Scheme Airport (or just "Snowy Airport" or other iterations) while the public airfield was just "Cooma" airport. Discarding booking engine type search results and considering those with actual content that is of encyclopedic interest, it is possible that many search results for "Snowy Mountains Airport" may be referring to Polo Flat or other SMA airstrips. - This is certainly the case when using search engines such as Trove. Although the change to the name was only minor, I believe that it is detrimental to the article, however it would be appropriate to add a "nativename" field or such in the infobox, or provide this clarification in the lede. Dfadden (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Henryk IV ProbusHenry Probus – Per WP:NCROY. "Use the most common, unambiguous name: Carl XVI Gustaf, Elizabeth II, Alfonso XII, Louis XIV, William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Mary, Queen of Scots, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." "Henry Probus" is more common than "Henryk Probus" "Henryk IV Probus" (the current title) and "Henry IV Probus" [42] UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Polish–Ukrainian ethnic conflictPolish–Ukrainian relations (1939–1947) – The article's author was unable to demonstrate the source basis for the existence of a Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict in 1942-47; the very fact that he places the Polish anti-communist and pro-independence Freedom and Independence Association on the Ukrainian side demonstrates his poor grasp of the subject, but also, and above all, the inability to narrate the entire history solely through the optics of "ethnic conflict." For indeed, this is a misleading take. First, because it is difficult to define the actors. The Polish side is not homogeneous: there are many organizations, and the three main currents (the Home Army, the Nationalists and the Communists) had different attitudes toward the Ukrainian cause and did not pursue a uniform policy. Likewise, on the Ukrainian side, there is the OUN-M, OUN-B (and UPA), UCK collaborators, Bulbovets, Ukrainian Soviet partisans, Ukrainian SSR authorities, etc. Second, despite generally hostile relations, there were also periods of peace, attempts at agreement, and actual alliances. There is an entire book by Grzegorz Motyka and Rafał Wnuk on this subject: "Pany and rezuny. Cooperation of the AK-WiN and the UPA 1945-1947". Many Ukrainians served in the Polish army in 1939 and in the Polish armed forces in the west. Pavlo Shandruk cooperated with the Polish government in exile etc. These are things largely not currently described on Wikipedia. In the current situation, I see two choices: # due to the fact that the article is a translation from the Polish Wiki of the article under the title " Polish-Ukrainian partisan fighting", we can move it under this title and change the scope to describe the skirmishes between the two partisan movement. # or, as I suggest, move it under the title I proposed and describe the whole of Polish-Ukrainian relations during the war. I believe that such an article would be valuable and would be a " container" tying together all the topics currently described in isolation (the massacres of Poles in Volhynia, the Hrubieszów revolution, the WiN-UPA alliance, etc.). Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Misr StadiumNew Administrative Capital Stadium – For this article, I think it's a case of WP:OFFICIAL vs WP:COMMONNAME. First, to clarify some info:
    * In Arabic, the stadium's official name is (ستاد مصر الدولي بالعاصمة الإدارية الجديدة), which translates to Misr International Stadium in the New Administrative Capital. * The short official name is (ستاد مصر), and translates to Misr Stadium or Stadium of Egypt in English. * The common name used is (ستاد العاصمة الإدارية الجديدة), which translates to the New Administrative Capital Stadium. By googling all three suitable names (Misr Stadium, Stadium of Egypt, and New Administrative Capital Stadium), we will get 278,000 vs 71,800,000 vs 30,900,000 results, respectively, with the second one generally showing results for all stadiums in Egypt and other results not related to the stadium itself; making the latter option the most suitable title for this article. Note that this was the original title of the article, but another user moved it to Misr Stadium, and I didn't want to revert that move without reaching consensus here first. Regarding the second request, it's for a simple removal of quotation marks from the title. I tried doing it myslef, but I wasn't allowed to. This one might qualify to WP:RM#SPEEDY. Ben5218 (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 22, 2024

  • (Discuss)Natalia KusendovaNatalia Kusendova-Bashta – Procedural nomination, as article subject married in 2022. This isn't a clearcut slamdunk, however; she appears to not have immediately started using her hyphenated married name right away, as a government media release from 2023 still refers to her as just Kusendova, but another one from just a few days ago does say Kusendova-Bashta. She's also had virtually no media coverage of note since the 2022 Ontario general election, when she was still just Kusendova — but her own website gives her name as Kusendova-Bashta in text even though its url is still just Kusendova; her profile on the Legislative Assembly site is now at Kusendova-Bashta; and if we go by her own social networking presence, she's hyphenated Kusendova-Bashta on Xitter and LinkedIn, and Kusendova Bashta without a hyphen on Instagram, but still just Kusendova on Facebook. So this would require some discussion because the signals are still a bit mixed, and can't really just be moved immediately without discussion. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Michael Larson → ? – To quote @Fourthords: in the GAR, I cannot understand why this is written as a biography, given Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. 82.8 percent of the article is directly related to the Press Your Luck event, and the rest is only sourced to articles discussing him in that same context[...]There's plenty of sources here to write Press Your Luck scandal appropriately, but it too would need to reckon with the other problems listed on this—and the article's talk—page. I don't usually deal with BLPs in this context, so I'm not sure what the most appropriate move should be here, but this is not the first time WP:BLP1E has come up within his context so I feel it should be discussed. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Vincent Lee Chuan Leong1999 Singapore kidnapping case – The current title is effectively WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. "Kidnapping of X" may not work given that the victim's name is generally not available outside, and even if so, we should generally avoid naming the victim here was 14yo when it happened. The proposed title is a descriptive one, and if there is a better alternative title, I am amenable to the proposed title as well. – robertsky (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Syncopy Inc.Syncopy – For some reason, Syncopy redirects to Syncope (medicine). The former spelling is not mentioned anywhere on the article, and I could find no evidence online that syncopy is anything but a misspelling of syncope. Possibly, the redirect was created as the phonetic spelling of the medical term, since Syncopy Inc. was not created until two years later. As no other article titled "syncopy" currently exists, and syncopy appears to be an uncommon misspelling of syncope, the production company should not need to be disambiguated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21, 2024

  • (Discuss)Tacky's WarTacky's Revolt – "Tacky's Revolt" is a much more WP:COMMONNAME than "Tacky's War" for this event per Ngrams: [46]. The best source (and, I believe, the only book) specifically about this event—Tacky's Revolt (2020) by Vincent Brown—calls it by this name: "Tacky's Revolt" is the standard name for the violent events that began with the attack on Fort Haldane and ended months later with the defeat of Wager and others on the far side of the island. [47] I considered "Tacky's Rebellion", as it very slightly beats "Tacky's Revolt" in Ngrams, but there are more results from Google Scholar for "Tacky's Revolt": 190 for "Tacky's Revolt", 107 for "Tacky's Rebellion", and just 24 for "Tacky's War". I also considered the lowercase "Tacky's revolt", but "Tacky's Revolt" is about four times as frequent as "Tacky's revolt" in Ngrams. Malerisch (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Amarillo (disambiguation)Amarillo – No clear primary topic between the city, plant and Is This the Way to. The city has 22,018 views but the plant has 15,655, Is This the Way to has 2,965, the episode has 1,472, the Gorillaz song has 146 and the J Balvin song has 101[[48]]. Google results are mixed between the city and Is This the Way to. Images is split between the city, colour (which isn't relevant in English as opposed to Spanish) and Is This the Way to is also there. In terms of long-term significance the city has long-term significance but the plant also has and Is This the Way to would probably also be better known though its a PTM and the name comes from the city. US cities are commonly referred to with the state which may mean readers searching with plain "Amarillo" are less likely to be looking for the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Political status of Nagorno-KarabakhThe political status of the Republic of Artsakh – The article's content demonstrates that the political developments, negotiations, and conflicts discussed primarily involve the self-declared Republic of Artsakh as a political entity, rather than the geographical region of Nagorno-Karabakh. WP:PRECISION: The term "Republic of Artsakh" accurately reflects the political entity that declared independence in 1991 and existed until its collapse in 2023. While "Nagorno-Karabakh" refers to the geographical region, "Republic of Artsakh" specifically denotes the self-declared, though internationally unrecognized, republic. This distinction is crucial for accurately describing the entity's political status, which is the focus of the article. Альдий (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)BangaloreBengaluru – Bengaluru is a more commonly called name. It has been almost a decade since the official name change. Today, most of the media houses uses the name Bengaluru. Both state and central governments have completely changed the name of Bangalore to Bengaluru wherever necessary. Even most multi-national corporations and organizations refer to it as Bengaluru. So it is important that this page (Bangalore) be renamed or moved to Bengaluru, per WP:COMMONNAME. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fremantle Football ClubFremantle Dockers – Discussing titles for the new Tasmanian team has me thinking about how our AFL clubs' articles are named – in my view, they're not up to scratch with modern titling policy. For context, of the 18 AFL clubs, Gold Coast Suns, Greater Western Sydney Giants, Sydney Swans, West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs currently use the "[location] [mascot]" combo, with the other 13 currently at "[location] Football Club". In my view, we should be using the "[location] [mascot]" combination more often, if not in all cases, because it is more concise, recognisable and is used more often by our sources. Past justifications for using "[location] Football Club" have tended to rest on the idea that articles should use whatever the club's official name is, which is not necessarily true. Aside from this general rationale, some points specific to Fremantle: *Clubs that have acquired their current name after the 1980s – Sydney (relocated 1982), West Coast (entered 1987), Western Bulldogs (rebranded 1996), Gold Coast (entered 2011) and GWS (entered 2012) – all use "[location] [mascot]". The exception is Adelaide (entered 1991, title is "Adelaide Football Club") but their article also probably needs to be moved. Because Fremantle entered in 1995, using "[location] [mascot]" is especially consistent with the more recent clubs tending to use this format. *Many third-party sources use "Fremantle Dockers": PerthNow, Fox, The West, ZeroHanger, Nine, Seven, The Roar Sydney Morning Herald, ABC. I'm not exactly going to say "Fremantle Dockers" is the WP:COMMONNAME, because the actual COMMONNAME is probably just "Fremantle" or "the Dockers", but those names aren't suitable options. *Fremantle consistently use "Dockers" over "Football Club" in their own branding. It's on their logo, their social media accounts, their official app and so on. *"Dockers" is consistent across time. During their time in the AFL, Fremantle have never been known by a name other than the Dockers. *"Dockers" is consistent across teams. There's no reserves or AFLW team using a different name. And some other notes: *This move request is intended as a warm-up to gauge community sentiment and avoid changing too much at once, not to suggest Fremantle is the only club that needs their article moved. *If this move request succeeds, associated articles with "Fremantle Football Club" in their title (e.g. List of Fremantle Football Club players) should be moved to the equivalent title with "Fremantle Dockers". – Teratix 08:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Robert FiorettiBob Fioretti – Per WP:CommonName. I have been considering this for a LONG TIME. Fioretti's common name, in my opinion, is "Bob" not "Robert". If you look at news coverage of his most recent campaign, for instance, most media refer to him as "Bob" not "Robert". It's been this case for years. Additionally, his campaign website and materials do the same. As did previous campaigns. As does his Ballotpedia page. His public Twitter and Facebook accounts also use "Bob". Even the name of his campaign committee uses "Bob". SecretName101 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Francis, Duke of GuiseFrançois, Duke of Guise – Requesting move of these articles per WP:COMMONNAME. I will begin my argument with ngrams, even though I find them largely overcrowded by noise. Please see [49] [50] [51] [52] Moving beyond ngrams, my argument revolves around the English literature that focuses on the family, the era of the Italian Wars, and the era French Wars of Religion, both areas of which they played a central role in and are therefore not an incidental mention in. Stuart Carroll (2011) Martyr's and Murderers: The Guise Family and the Making of Europe, is the most recent English language biography of the family - it refers to the second duke of Guise as François, his son the third duke as Henri and the fifth duke of Guise as Henri II (also the seventh duke of Guise as François-Joseph though that Wikipedia article is already at François-Joseph, so does not require changing.) The other recent English book which discusses them in the title is Mark Konnert's (2006) Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595) - it refers to François, and Henri. I will now briefly survey English academics who have written on this area in the last couple of decades, and their various positions on the names. Gould (2006) = François; Roelker (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri; Roelker (1996) = François, Henri; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François, Spangler (2016) = Henri Tingle (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri Holt (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name. sovietblobfish (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Robertus Pius (TalkContribs) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jenna PresleyBrittni De La Mora – Per WP:NAMECHANGES, this article should be moved to the title that most accurately reflects present-day sourcing and the current professional name/identity this WP:BLP individual uses. It is disrespectful and inaccurate to use the name "Jenna Presley" to refer to her life before and after her career in the adult film industry. Now that we are twelve years removed from her leaving the industry, it is clear that this name change is necessary based on her life since then. Such a change would still be in line with the criteria at WP:TITLE, namely WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. I have also seen MOS:DEADNAME cited; I recognize the specific applications of this guideline, but I do believe that its spirit applies to this situation. I would have boldly performed this move myself, but I was unable to perform the technical component due to "Brittni De La Mora" already existing as a redirect. TNstingray (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Anarchist St. Imier InternationalAnti-Authoritarian International – In my experience, the term "Anti-Authoritarian International" appears to be the common name for this organisation in historical sources.[54] I rarely see it referred to as the "Anarchist International", as the term "anarchist" wasn't even formally adopted by members of the organisation until after it had already collapsed (see Graham 2019, p. 339). But we do know that they referred to themselves as "anti-authoritarians", in order to distance themselves from the Marxist International. Grnrchst (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jew's harpJaw harp – "Jew harp" has only 3,50,000 results, "Jew's harp" has only 1,75,000 results, but "Jaw harp" has 6,50,000 results on Google, while "Mouth harp" has 5,42,000 results. "Jaw harp" is the WP:COMMONNAME. Not only that, but "Jew's harp" is treated as anti-semitic by a number of sources.[55][56] This is yet another reason why we should avoid using this title. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Shukan ShinchoShūkan Shinchō – Having the macron in the name is the more correct translation of this Japanese magazine name to English. No standard title has been established in English so we should defer to the technically correct translation for the page title. DCsansei (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sarukhan, Bey of MagnesiaSaruhan – Already redirects here. Else, it can be Saruhan Bey or something similar, because this is the only person with the name on Wikipedia if I'm not mistaken. Magnesia is only a settlement, and he and his descendants ruled a region, more than just one town. So, "Magnesia" should definitely be removed in some way. Aintabli (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)1933 German referendum1933 German League of Nations withdrawal referendumWP:NC-GAL, the naming guideline for referendums, sets out the naming format for referendums as being [date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] referendum", for example 1946 Faroese independence referendum, though it is worth pointing out some referendum articles do not have the [type] added, because it is too complex to explain in a few words or the referendums cover multiple topics. However, I do not think this is the case for these four articles (particularly not the first two listed) I had assumed the move of this article would be uncontroversial given the naming convention (and made it a short time ago), but it was was reverted because it made the article title inconsistent with others, so now using the formal RM process. I think the proposed titles of the 1933 and 1926 articles should be uncontroversial and in line with the naming guideline. I am not 100% convinced that there are not better alternatives for the 1929 and 1934 articles, which I am happy for alternatives to be suggested or simply to keep them at the existing titles if they are deemed to awkward. However, I felt that given the move of this article was reverted because the other articles hadn't been moved, it would be best to cover this in a single discussion, even if it is a little messy, so it might be best for responders to indicate whether they approve of all or merely some of the proposals (or none). Cheers, Number 57 17:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)MosasaurMosasauridae – Per existing discussion, there seems to be an agreement that "Mosasaur" is too ambiguous of a term to refer to any specific taxon, and so is better off being redirected to a disambiguation page. Since this article's content focuses entirely on mosasaurids, it should be renamed to that family, following the precedent of Ichthyosauria. Macrophyseter | talk 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Edward V of EnglandEdward VBackground: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion. Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Genital modification and mutilationGenital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bojana (river)Buna (river) – Buna/Bojana is a river which flows from northern Albania to the Adriatic Sea. Half of its course is entirely within Albania and in the next half, it forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. Arguments in favor of a move to Buna: *Per WP:COMMONNAME: Google Scholar: **5.940 (Bojana) **9.260 (Buna). I searched for other variants and added some additional qualifiers to remove results for the name Bojana instead of the river, but the overall ratio doesn't qualitatively change. The name Buna is used more frequently than the name Bojana. *Per WP:NCRIVER: If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name Buna is entirely within Albania and half of its course forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. The name Buna is used for all sections of the river, while the name Bojana only for part it. *Per WP:UEGN: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names. The local name for over 98% of communities living along the Buna is Albanian both as an official and as a local name. Bojana is used as the official name in Montenegro, but Ulcinj municipality is an Albanian minority area. As such, both Bojana and Buna are co-official in the section which forms the border with Montenegro.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Oil Lamp FragmentOldest depiction of a menorah – "Oil Lamp Fragment" is a very generic "name" which doesn't seem to be in use as the name of this fragment. Wikipedia shouldn't invent new names for things which lack a name, but instead use a descriptive title. I had moved an older version of this page to Oldest depiction of a menorah without a redirect (as I consider it a very unlikely search term for this specific object), but it was recreated. I would suggest to move this over to the new name, without a redirect from the current name. Fram (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)High TensionHigh Tension (2003 film) – There are a considerable number of other targets at High Tension (disambiguation). Per WP:NOPRIMARY the dab page should be located at High Tension and not the 2003 film. I further note that this film has been released in English on DVD/Blu-Ray under two different titles, High Tension and Switchblade Romance so the naming convention in English isn't consistent. This further demonstrates that this is not the primary target for High Tension, and for this reason I would also support a move alternative to Switchblade Romance which has no competing titles, or simply using the original French language title, Haute tension. A further point to consider, High Tension could become a redirect to high voltage as the primary target as "Extra-High Tension" or EHT is a common measurement in electricity. There are several options here. Either way, the 2003 film should be moved. 4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Frederik IX of DenmarkFrederik IX – He's the only monarch with this exact name, so we should move per WP:PRECISE, and the move will make the article title consistent with his daughter and now his grandson, whose name is spelled without the C. Векочел (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: A mistake on my part in saying Frederik IX was the only monarch with this name. He is the only king with this exact name. Векочел (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests

References

  1. ^ https://www.cyta.com.cy/
  2. ^ "Sikh Confederacy - New World Encyclopedia". www.newworldencyclopedia.org. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  3. ^ "Sikh Confederacy - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia". www.sikhiwiki.org. Retrieved 2024-03-23.
  4. ^ "History | District Amritsar, Government of Punjab | India". Retrieved 2024-03-23.

See also