Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. 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. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. 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, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

This article describes the Parks Trust in past tense as a defunct entity that was merged with something else to create the new entity called San Francisco Parks Alliance. The current article has historical value in describing the old Trust before its closure. The current redirect at San Francisco Parks Alliance could be developed into a separate article on the new Alliance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

@Literally Satan This reverts a 2023 move by @InfiniteNexus that appears undiscussed? Bensci54 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble figuring out the move history so if it belongs in this section rather than the one I put it in then so be it. I continue to request the move for the reasons stated above. -Literally Satan (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Title has been in place for two years, disqualifying it as an auto undo of an undiscussed move. However, consider this just as a just regular new technical request, seemingly in line with the naming policy WP:NOUN over a hyphenated adjective. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Where is this policy or guideline declaring that two years is too long to qualify as a "reversion of an undiscussed move"? NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player had an undiscussed move reverted more than five years afterwards. Left guide (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES. YMMV. But it seems moot, as I'm proposing to avoid WP:BURO and just process this as a policy-based technical request. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contested technical requests

This is not an uncontroversial technical request. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham11 I don't disagree with this move, but this page does have an old RM, making it ineligible for RMTR. A full RM will be required. Bensci54 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, Talk:Houston Street#Requested move in 2012, which found consensus for keeping the extra disambiguation in the case of such numbered streets. 162 etc. (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, per WP:CONCISE a shorter title without an unnecessary parenthesis is preferred. CoconutOctopus talk 12:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WWE Evolution (2025) article for the upcoming event, support. 162 etc. (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") 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, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. 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 25 May 2025" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have to update a RM from a single move to multiple moves, you need to add the following parameters to the {{requested move/dated}} template call:

  • |multiple=yes
  • |current1=Current title of page 1

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 25 May 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2025 (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 25 May 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2025 (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 25 May 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2025‎ (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 25 May 2025

– why Example (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2025 (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 25 May 2025

– why Example (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 125 discussions have been relisted.

May 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C. → 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting – - Much of the discussion below was split into two categories: a) an immediate need to change the grammatically nonsensical title the article initially had, and b) identifying whether the final correct article would be centered on the death of Israeli embassy workers, the Capital Jewish Museum venue, or the names of the two victims. As noted, there was a consensus to speedy move from the nonsense title to something, although no clear consensus was reached on precisely what to move the page to. The page was moved by an editor on the basis of WP:IAR. That resulted in a better page title, albeit not a consensus and not the result of a full, proper requested move procedure. The move brought the page name closer to the original move request. Now that that request has been effectively vitiated, I'm updating the request to propose moving to the museum name title. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to update the move request; if this update should be moved to the end of this talk section or otherwise reformatted, please do so. This seemed more logical than creating a wholly new move request and starting a new discussion of the same merits. The arguments for various proposed names are discussed at length below, with no clear consensus reached or, to me at least, immediately evident. Jbbdude (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Art of Personal Chaos concerts → Mayhem (promotional tour) – I understand that "The Art of Personal Chaos" is the official name of the show, which is displayed at the beginning of the show. However, the "The Art of Personal Chaos" name is not used in any of the marketing for the concerts. For example, for the Singapore shows, only "Lady Gaga in Singapore" and "Mayhem Singapura" (Lion City Mayhem) were used in all promotional material of the concerts (with Live Nation simply using the former title as the official name of the concert [4]). Hence, "Mayhem (promotional tour)" would be a common name (WP:COMMONNAME) that makes the article more identifable for readers. I personally think "Mayhem (promotional tour)" is more suitable, since all the concerts already have "Mayhem" in their titles. However, I am also okay with reverting back to "Mayhem promotional concerts" TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Chiraprapha → ? – Chiraprapha is the Thai-style romanization, while Jiraprabhadevi reflects the Sanskrit/Pali etymology and traditional Indic name construction which is similar to the Northern Thai pronunciation but the correct name following IAST would be Ciraprabhā, let's discuss which is better. Inner789 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Grazing antelope → Hippotragini – The name "grazing antelope" is a holdover from when this article was first created in the 2000s, and looking at scholar, [5] it does not seem to be a specific name used for hippotragin(e) antelopes, but a generic term for all kinds of antelopes that predominantly graze, and therefore this name is too generic for an article title. Both Hippotragini and Hippotraginae are widely used in the scientific literature, though Hippotragini seems slightly more common [6] [7], and therefore should be preferred per WP:COMMONNAME Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Landing at Gagra (1992) → First Battle of Gagra (1992) – It looks like from the article that it was not just a landing but a battle from 22 August - 3 September (until ceasefire), which effectively qualifies as a counteroffensive after landing. It is WP:UNDUE to have separate articles about landings because of how small number of troops were involved and how small casualities were. The proportionality does not requires the small events having separate their own articles. Moreover, they were part of the same operation - landing and conuteroffensive. Therefore, Landing at Gagra (1992) and Landing at Gantiadi should be merged into new First Battle of Gagra (1992) article, with the landing becoming subsection of this article, counteroffensive being another one. Second Battle of Gagra (1992) should be the battle of October. Geokrieg (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Farsightedness → Hyperopia – Nearsightedness was recently moved to Myopia [8] as it is the more commonly used medical term (as per WP:MEDTITLE), so this would make the articles a matching pair. Doing a similar test of "term + LASIK" on google scholar: * 15,900 hits for "hyperopia LASIK" * 12,100 hits for "hypermetropia LASIK" * 1,030 hits for "farsightedness LASIK" * 216 hits for "far-sightedness LASIK" (the old title for this article before it was moved to farsightedness) Hypermetropia is also a reasonable contender, but less common from what I found, on google scholar overall (ie. without including LASIK) it had 21,500 results to hyperopia's 55,000. However, if someone can find solid evidence that it is more prevalent, I would be supportive of that change instead. LQ192 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Ahmednagar → Ahilyanagar – एक गानाय २७२२/प्र.क्र.१५६/जपुक (२९). "अहमदनगर" या शहराचे नाव बदलून ते "अहिल्यानगर" असे करण्याच्या प्रस्तावास भारत सरकारच्या गृह मंत्रालय यांचे पत्र क्रमांक ११/२०/२०२४-M&G, दिनांक १ ऑक्टोबर, २०२४ अन्वये
    Ek Ganai 2722/P.Kr.156/JPUK (29). The proposal to change the name of the city "Ahmednagar" to "Ahilyanagar" is given in the letter No. 11/20/2024-M&G dated 1st October, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Abhijitsrr (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Syrian Republic → Syrian Republics – I understand that this has already been discussed, but I would like to reopen the question regarding the article's title. The previous discussion did not address the issue of the primary topic of the term "Syrian Republic". The primary topic of the term is clearly Syria, officially the Syrian Arab Republic, a country in West Asia. Therefore, "Syrian Republic" should redirect to that article. Set index articles listing all republican states with names of the form "country adjectival Republic" are typically titled in the plural. Examples include: * Portuguese Republics * French Republics * Polish Republics Hassan697 (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Museum for Hamburg History → Museum of Hamburg History – Ngrams show this to be a more commonly used name in English-language sources. Although the official English website used "Museum for Hamburg History" in 2020, when this article had its last RM, the English name it now uses is "Museum of Hamburg History". If the German name "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte" is added to the ngrams it comes out on top, but unfortunately the results on which that's based don't seem to exclude German-language sources from what is meant to be an English-language search, so it's hard to say how "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte" would compare with "Museum of Hamburg History" (at least in recent sources). The safe course of action seems to be to go with the name in current official use in English, although I personally don't think that either "Museum of Hamburg History" or "Museum for Hamburg History" is very idiomatic English. Ham II (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Circular line (New Taipei Metro) → Circular line (Taipei Metropolitan Area) – Although the operation of Phase 1 has been transfered to New Taipei Metro Corp. since 2023, the content of this article includes the future section of this metro line. The operator of this line in the future (when the construaction of Phase 2 is almost done) has not been concluded yet. I think that the readers who read this article might think that the following section would be operated by New Taipei Metro Corp. I think it sounds strange. Thus, not until the operator of the future section is announced should the article be named "Circular line (Taipei Metropolitan Area)". (See the move-log at Chinese Wikipedia.) Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 04:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Federal states of Austria → States of Austria – I know this is a previously discussed issue, which is why I'd like to gather a few arguments for the potential terms in the following statement so the WP community can decide on it and ideally resolve the debate: In terms of WP:COMMONNAME, both "states" and "provinces" are fairly common. However, I believe we should avoid the term "federal" in the title, as it is both uncommon and wordy without adding significant contextual value. This leaves us to choose between "states" and "provinces" based on considerations other than COMMONNAME. "State" is a well-established and common term on WP for administrative subdivisions of countries, applicable for Austria as well as other federations like Nigeria, Venezuela, or the neighboring Germany. It is required by WP:ACON is used by official EU sites as a translation and is more WP:CONCISE than "province". On the other hand, Austrian government websites and the translation of the Federal Constitutional Law appear to use "provinces" instead. In my personal understanding, "state" is a more direct translation of Land / Bundesland than "province" and conveys the concept of a more autonomous region compared to province, as every Austrian state is governed by a separate Landtag. "Province" is likely used by Austrian authorities to avoid confusion with the federal state of Austria itself, but to me, this phonetic similarity doesn’t make "state" unsuitable or "province" preferrable. Additionally, considering the concision, usage by the EU, alignment with WP:ACON and the similarity to Germany, there are more arguments favoring "state" than "province", which is why I lean toward "state". Perhaps we could start a poll beneath this message for either "state(s)" (a) or "province(s)" (b). If I've missed any points, please feel free to comment below. –Tobias (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific) → HSBC Life – * What I think should be changed: Page Name Update: HSBC Insurance (Asia-Pacific) -> HSBC Life  * Why it should be changed: HSBC Insurance (Asia-Pacific) is the holding company (Full Name: HSBC Insurance (Asia-Pacific) Holdings Limited), and HSBC Life is the brand of the insurance business of HSBC and more well-known to consumers. * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ "Bloomberg company overview on HSBC Life International". Bloomberg. Bloomberg. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  2. ^ "HSBC Life". International Insurance Society. International Insurance Society. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  3. ^ "HSBC LIFE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED". Dun & Bradstreet. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  4. ^ "HSBC appoints Ed Moncreiffe as CEO, Global Insurance". Hubbis. Hubbis. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  5. ^ "HSBC Milestones & Awards". HSBC Insurance. HSBC. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  6. ^ Musa Touray, Momodou. "HSBC appoints Moncreiffe as CEO of global insurance division". MoneyMarketing. MoneyMarketing. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  7. ^ "HSBC RECEIVES FINAL APPROVAL FOR JOINTLY HELD INSURANCE COMPANY IN CHINA". U.S Securities and Exchange Commissions. SEC Archives. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  8. ^ "HSBC - Our history". HSBC. HSBC. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  9. ^ "HSBC Life is the brand of the insurance business of HSBC". HSBC Life. HSBC. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
  10. ^ "About HSBC Life". HSBC. HSBC. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
Currentasia (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Holocaust → Holocaust – This has been discussed before, but it was a long time ago (13 years!) and consensus can change. There are several reasons why this article should be moved to Holocaust. * Holocaust already redirects here as it is the primary topic. * "The Holocaust" is not capitalized in running text (see MOS:THE) * Many people say that the Holocaust was a unique event in history, but most events do not use "The" in the article title * Some people say that "Holocaust" is a generic term. However, in modern usage, "Holocaust" almost always specifically refers to the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. Mast303 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC) (edited 01:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

May 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Paul Marshall Johnson Jr. → Killing of Paul Johnson – This is something I've seen with other articles regarding beheading victims of Islamist groups. Most of their articles are better suited for "Killing of" articles with the only exceptions given that nearly all of them solely focus on their deaths, lacking notabilty either before or after (such as Kayla Mueller). Similar has already been done with Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, and Margaret Hassan. Others would include: *David Haines (aid worker) → Killing of David Haines The aforementioned three articles differ in having the phrasings "Killing of", "Kidnapping and murder of" or "Kidnapping and killing of". I generally lean towards the former for simplicity, but wouldn't mind either of the other two. The ones killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are already listed in the "Foreign hostages in x" articles and can probably be deleted if they're not considered noteworthy enough for their own articles in hindsight. As for the shortening of Johnson's name, it was the common name used in reporting about his kidnapping and beheading, including the U.S. Department of State and the UN. He was called "Paul Marshall Johnson Jr." signifcantly less often than just "Paul Johnson" or "Paul Johnson Jr.". The new article title alone would be distinctive enough, with a redirect of "Paul Johnson (murder victim)" and an about notice linking to the disambiguation page. The only articles that should be left standalone with their killing in the death section are journalists i.e. Daniel Pearl, James Foley, Kenji Goto, given how they seem to fulfill general notability. Rubintyrann (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kurmanji → Northern Kurdish – The current title Kurmanji does not reflect the standard naming conventions used for Kurdish language varieties on wikipedia or in linguistic references. If we have Central Kurdish and Southern Kurdish, where is the Northern? Even the short description of the article says "a Northern Kurdish dialect", so is this article about the Northern Kurdish language group or only about the Kurmanji dialect? I'm confused, If it's about the dialect, then why do Kurmanji and Northern Kurdish redirect to each other? Either we separate them properly, or we call it what it is, Northern Kurdish. Academically and linguistically, the standard name is Northern Kurdish; even the ISO 639-3 code for kmr officially lists the language as Northern Kurdish, not Kurmanji. Famous Kurdish linguist Jamal Nebez also used Northern Kurdish instead of Kurmanji. This is Jamal Nebez's opinion about Kurmanji: Kirmanc/Kirmanj/Kurmanc. It is another word for the name "Kurd", which is why the Kurdish language is called Kurmanji language. Kurmanji is sometimes mistakenly used for Northern Kurdish by others.[1] The term Kurmanji is often culturally synonymous with the name Kurd; Vladimir Minorsky stated that the word "Kurmanj" is composed of two elements: kurd + mannaea (Kurdomani > Kurdomanj > Kurdmanj).[2] even in Wiktionary, only Northern Kurdish is used. Authoritative linguistic sources use Northern Kurdish as the standard: Glottolog, Ethnologue, Linguasphere Register.

References

  1. ^ Jamal Nebez (2008). Wişenamekî Êtîmolojiyay Zimanî Kurdî. p. 193.
  2. ^ Michael L. Chyet (2003). Kurdish–English Dictionary.
 Zemen  (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Garsh (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 21, 2025

  • (Discuss) – List of rampage killers → List of rampage killings – The lists are focused on the events, not their perpetrators. In around sixty of the listed cases, the perpetrator doesn't even seem to be known by name or couldn't be identified as either a single individual or group. It would then be more appropriate to move the dates, locations, casualties, and weapon before the perpetrator in the table template. The titles of the sublistings should be changed accordingly, with the exception of the article List of rampage killers (workplace killings), which can be renamed to List of workplace killings. Then there is also the "other incidents" list, which makes up half of the page and lists a multitude of wildly varying attacks. There is a lot of overlap with the religious, political and ethnic attack lists, such as the 1999 London nail bombings or the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing, and the listings by continents, such as the Daegu subway fire and the Happy Land fire, which would regularly be listed at the top of the Asia and Americas list going by casualties, but are randomly excluded, despite other arson articles being in these lists as well (for example the Saint John City Hall fire or the Bohumín arson attack). A few of these even have "(accused)" attached to the names of the perpetrators, which probably breaches WP:SUSPECT in the more recent cases. The "other incidents" list would be more appropriately listed into dedicated pages for bombings, arson, poisonings and vehicle attacks (with another subsorting into land vehicles and planes). Rubintyrann (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 20, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Museum of the Chinese Communist Party → Museum of the Communist Party of China – This page was previously moved to the current name citing WP:COMMONNAME, as per prior discussion at Talk:Chinese Communist Party. I'm not going to delve into that debate, because that debate is largely irrelevant to this article, as that is about the common name of the CCP/CPC, not this museum, and it appears that most online sources use the museum's official name "Museum of the Communist Party of China", which should be considered its common name instead. WP:CONSISTENT shouldn't be applied here as that largely pertains to formatting consistency except for WP:CONSUB, which I believe shouldn't apply either as this museum isn't strictly a subtopic of the Chinese Communist Party article (as opposed to articles like "Discography of {artist name}" or "Economy of {country name}"). Liu1126 (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Iroquois passport → Haudenosaunee passport – Haudenosaunee passport is the common name for this subject. The redirect is already in place and should be swapped, with Iroquois passport redirecting to the new title. Haudenosaunee passport is also the official name of the document. Of the 19 sources referenced in the article: 6 use Haudenosaunee passport, 4 use Iroquois passport, 1 (Ref 7) uses passports issued by the Iroquois Confederacy, 1 (Ref 5) uses Iroquois passport in the headline only and then uses Haudenosaunee passport consistently throughout, 1 (Ref 13) refers to passports issued by both the Iroquois Nation and the Haudenosaunee, 1 (Ref 14) refers only to passports issued by the Iroquois Federation, 1 (Ref 17) uses Iroquois passport and Haudenosaunee-issued passport once each, 1 (Ref 18) does not use either phrase but uses the name Iroquois throughout, 1 discusses a related issue with Cree passports and does not use either phrase, and 2 are dead links. These passports are often discussed in reference to travel issues facing the Haudenosaunee Nationals lacrosse team, which changed their name from Iroquois Nationals in 2022. The sources in the article are mostly older. Notably, several reliable sources referred to the passports as Haudenosaunee even when the team bore the name Iroquois: CBC (2018), The Canadian Encyclopedia (2013), and Indian Country Today (2010). More importantly, a broader assessment of reliable sources and recent usage shows a preference for Haudenosaunee passport(s). Google Ngram shows zero results for singular Iroquois passport and substantially lower use of Iroquois passports than either the plural or singular with Haudenosaunee. Google Scholar returns 205 hits for Haudenosaunee passports, 116 hits for Haudenosaunee passport, 46 hits for Iroquois passports, and 32 hits for Iroquois passports. Two of the five references that use Iroquois passport(s) in the article are from New York Times articles published in 1990 and 2010, respectively. NYT Magazine used Haudenosaunee passport(s) in this May 13, 2025 article and NYT articles from 2022 and 2023 do no use the exact phrase but discuss the passport issues and refer to the people as Haudenosaunee. Other sources that use Haudenosaunee passport(s) include BBC (2024), Jerusalem Post (2018), Villanova University (2024), National Geographic (2020), Harvard University, and the book Indigenous Peoples and Borders (2024) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – SWAT → SWAT (United States) – This article has been about SWAT units in the United States. Recent edits have added content on SWAT units in China to the article. There is a need to distinguish SWAT in the United States from SWAT in China, which can be accomplished by spitting (WP:CONTENTSPLIT) this article and creating a separate SWAT (China) article. A 2023 journal article titled "Demystifying China’s police tactical units" in the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice was according to the authors the first study in English language on SWAT in China.[7] According to the authors, the first SWAT team was formed in China in 2005 and by 2010 there "more than 900 teams with more than 48,000 enlisted officers". The role of SWAT in China and the entry into SWAT is different to SWAT in the United States. The large number of teams and officers in China is notable to include in Wikipedia.

References

  1. ^ Quinn, Josephine Crawley (2014). "A Carthaginian perspective on the Altars of the Philaeni". In Quinn, Josephine Crawley; Vella, Nicholas C. (eds.). The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 169. doi:10.1017/cbo9781107295193.012. ISBN 978-1-107-29519-3.
  2. ^ Agbamu, Samuel (2024). Restorations of Empire in Africa: Ancient Rome and Modern Italy's African Colonies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 206–237. doi:10.1093/9780191943805.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-194380-5.
  3. ^ Anderson, Sean (2010). "The Light and the Line: Florestano Di Fausto and the Politics of 'Mediterraneità'". California Italian Studies. 1 (1). doi:10.5070/C311008864. ISSN 2155-7926.
  4. ^ Hom, Stephanie Malia (2012). "Empires of tourism: travel and rhetoric in Italian colonial Libya and Albania, 1911–1943". Journal of Tourism History. 4 (3): 281–300. doi:10.1080/1755182X.2012.711374. ISSN 1755-182X.
  5. ^ Parfitt, Rose (2018). "Fascism, Imperialism and International Law: An Arch Met a Motorway and the Rest is History..." Leiden Journal of International Law. 31 (3): 509–538. doi:10.1017/S0922156518000304. ISSN 0922-1565.
  6. ^ Segrè, Claudio G. (1990). Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life. Berkeley, US; London, UK: University of California Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-520-07199-5.
  7. ^ Liu, Lu; Chen, Li (June 2023). "Demystifying China's police tactical units". International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 73: 100595. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100595. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
Melbguy05 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Coalition (Australia) → Liberal–National Coalition – Reopening this proposal due to both recent events (the Liberal–National Coalition splitting) and length of time since the prior discussion. As mentioned prior, the current name of this article is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE, and does not accurately reflect the topic. Many highly reputable sources refer to a 'coalition' in the generic sense in relation to Australian politics, highlighting that a 'Coalition (Australia)' is a generic thing, not a thing that only refers to the Liberal–National Coalition (for example: the House of Representatives Practice (7th ed) which is used in Parliament by the Speaker of the House to refer to the rules of the house; the Australian Government's Parliamentary Education Office [28] [29]; the Parliament House itself [30]; the Australia Institute [31]; the Museum of Australian Democracy [32]). These sources highlight that what is typically referred to as an 'alliance' internationally is instead called a 'coalition' in Australian politics, meaning that 'Coalition (Australia)' absolutely should refer to that term. As also mentioned prior, there are other parties who have formed a coalition. Previous users have argued that these were not true coalitions, but 'minority governments' which is absolutely false according to these reputable sources. According to the rules presented by all of my prior sources: a 'coalition' in Australian politics is any formal arrangement between two or more parties to share power; a 'minority government' in Australian politics is one where a party is allowed to form government (by having its supply Bills passed) despite not having a majority of seats, and therefore has nothing to do with the concept of 'coalition'. The definitive Parliamentary rule and precedence guide also specifically refers to the Liberal–National Coalition as: [33] "Liberal–National Party ... coalition Governments", and refers to the "Free Trade–Protectionist coalition" between 1904 and 1905 and the "Protectionist–Free Trade–Tariff Reform coalition". This emphasises that "coalition" in these phrases is a description. It is not a part of the proper noun, much less a proper noun in its own right. This also emphasises that "Coalition (Australia)" is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE. Further reasons that "Coalition (Australia)" is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE is that the following are all examples of Australian coalitions as defined by (and often explicitly referenced) in those definitive sources: * the Alliance (Liberal–Residents Rally–Independents Group coalition; 1989-1991; fulfills criteria as per [34]); * a Nationalist–Country coalition (precursor to the Liberal–National coalition; 1922–1929; formal agreement present); * two United Australia–Country coalitions (LN coalition precursor; 1934–1939, 1940–1943); * several Liberal–National coalitions (initially a Liberal–Country coalition between 1946–1972 and 1974–1975; 1946–1972, 1974–1987, 1987–2025; formal agreement always present); * arguably a coalition of several small communist parties forming the Communist Alliance coalition (2009–2011); * the Emergency Committee of South Australia (a United Australia–Country–Liberal coalition; 1931–1932); * the Fair Elections Coalition (where the word 'coalition' was part of the party's registered name; Independent–Australian Democrats–Rainbow Alliance coalition; 1989–1991); * the Labor–Green Accord in Tasmania (a Labor–Greens Independents coalition; 1989–1990; formal agreement present); * a Labor–Greens coalition in the ACT (2012–2024; formal agreement present; preceded by a Labor minority government supported by the Greens); * the Minor Party Alliance (complex one which changed parties a lot; an Animal Justice–Australian Sports–Australian Voice–Daylight Savings–Family First–Fishing and Lifestyle–Justice–Liberal Democratic–Motoring Enthusiast–New Democrats–Sex–Transport Matters–WikiLeaks–Uniting Australia party coalition; various membership between 2013–current). * the Victorian Socialists (a Socialist Alternative–Socialist Alliance coalition, later party; 2018–2020). * the Reid ministry (a Free Trade–Protectionist coalition; [35]; 1904–1905); These are all, officially, coalitions. Many were also referred to as "The Coalition" in their time, indicating that "The Coalition (Australia)" or "Coalition (Australia)" could refer to any of them, depending on the time frame one is researching. Arguably the rename should be to "Liberal–National coalition" not "Liberal–National Coalition" because the phrase is not a proper noun and 'coalition' is not a part of a proper noun but a description. "The Coalition" is a grammatical error, the same as "the Opposition", because it refers to a generic role or descriptor. However I concede to "Liberal–National Coalition" as it has been adopted by many news sources. Whilst "The Coalition" most often refers to the Liberal–National coalition in recent history, that is a matter of bias: there is much more easily accessible media in the time that the Liberal–National coalition has been prevalent, and it is clear from historical sources which refer to the aforementioned coalitions that, at the time there was another coalition prominent, that coalition was also referred to as "the coalition". All style guides, grammatical conventions, and wikipedia guides would indicate that this article should be called "Liberal–National Coalition", particularly considering that there is no longer an Australian "Coalition". "Coalition (Australia)" is ambiguous and could refer to any of the above coalitions, or the concept of a coalition which is the Australian version of an alliance of political parties. Geordannik (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 19, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Cellophane noodles → Glass Noodles – Worldwide for the past seven days on Google Trends, "glass noodles" has significantly higher and more consistent interest than "cellophane noodles" (note that the site isn't currently fully working, and I couldn't see a thirty-day period, but I doubt it would be any different). I think the article's name should reflect what is most commonly called. Anecdotally, as an American I've never heard anyone call them cellophane noodles. Nyonyatwelve (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 18, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2024 Moldovan European Union membership referendum → 2024 Moldovan European Union membership constitutional referendum – The referendum wasn't actually about Moldova's accession to the EU but about changing the constitution to include accession as a goal to the constitution. This is an important detail. Had the referendum failed, the ruling pro-European government would have most likely justified continuing the accession process based on the referendum not having actually been about joining the EU. Of course that most Moldovans treated it like such, but considering the clear majority support both before and after the referendum for EU accession according to polls, as well as the fact that it was widely seen by much of the population as a strategy by Maia Sandu to increase support for her re-election on the same day, it is likely that in this tight vote there were people who were not opposed to EU accession but disliked the framing of the referendum by the ruling government. This detail carries much relevance in my opinion. By the way, I am the one who decided the current title [36] (now I disagree somewhat with this edit summary). I think this deserves discussion and I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors, because the current title misses a bit the article's topic. I'd like that the title bring more attention to the constitution. Super Ψ Dro 23:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

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

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Transnistria War → War in Transnistria – I thought the use of the proper noun Transnistria but not its adjective form was a bit peculiar, so I did a cursory search on Google to see if it is the common name. Google Ngrams returns no results for Transnistria War and plausible variants with the use of "war", including War in Transnistria, Transnistrian War, and War of Transnistria. Transnistrian conflict and Transnistria conflict return some results (conflict in / of Transnistria returning none), with the former adjective form seeing much more usage. However, Transnistria conflict is a separate article from Transnistria War with a wider scope, time-wise. "War in Transnistria" and "Transnistrian conflict" are the most used names by a significant margin in Google Search, Google Books, and Google Scholar. I'd rather not waste time copying-and-pasting all the links, but anyone can make the searches themselves and correct me if I'm mistaken. For consistency's sake, it may be preferential to move Transnistria War to Transnistrian war in conjunction with a move to Transnistrian conflict. A final note is that the Romanian and Russian translations provided in the lead also translate literally to "War in Transnistria". Yue🌙 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Base (hate group) → The Base (organization) – I'm open to other options but "Hate group" is a terrible disamb in any context, whether true or not. For the same reason we have moved all articles using the (Terrorist) disamb lately, it is just sloppy. Sources largely describe them as neo-Nazi, militant, etc, which are clearer. This article also does not mention that they were designated a hate group by any of the organizations that do that? It probably was but given that it is not included here and they are not called a hate group in the article already makes me think that is not a very good disamb. I am open to other options but this seems the most basic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Google Knowledge Graph → Knowledge Graph – The feature is called "Knowledge Graph", not "Google Knowledge Graph". See [82] [83] [84]. Not only is "Google Knowledge Graph" an incorrect name, but it is also less WP:CONCISE than "Knowledge Graph". Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the difference in capitalization from the general concept of a knowledge graph is sufficient to distinguish between the two articles, so potential confusion is not grounds for arbitrarily adding an incorrect qualifier to a proper name. WP:NATURAL clearly states: Do not use obscure or made-up names. Besides, Knowledge Graph (capitalized) already redirects here, with a hatnote pointing to the other page, so if there were truly a risk of confusion, that redirect shouldn't be pointing here in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yahwism → Ancient Israelite religion – The current name is sadly misleading. Yahwism is not the religion of the ancient Israelites, it is an aspect of it. It may be an important aspect in the religion, it may be the only thing separating it from the Canaanite religion, but it is not the religion itself. As Glennznl wrote here: "I find the term "Yahwism" a bit unfortunate though as it suggests that the religion had already changed into a monotheistic one. "Ancient Israelite religion" would be less misleading and clearer."
    I wrote an article in Hebrew Wikipedia about the Ancient Israelite religion, and explained there the non-Yahwistic characteristics of this religion in more details, based on high-quality recent sourcer. I intend to translate this content to English; it might have been wiser to suggest this move only after the translation, but unfortunately I won't have the time for the translation in the near future. I will be able to translate a summary, if you want more details on the subject. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Darkstalkers 3 → Vampire Savior – Vampire Savior was the title of the game used for all regional versions of the game and is even used on the Capcom Fighting Collection compilation in all regions and it ought to be given more priority than the Darkstalkers 3rebranding that was exclusive to a single console conversion of the game. I was disappointed that I was not notified of the prior discussion, given I was somewhat involved in editing this article before. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Life of Samuel Johnson → ? – There appears to be various titles of this book, depending on the source. The current article is inconsistent: title says "Life of Samuel Johnson" but lead sentence says "The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D." Here are the titles and their potential cases: * The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Looking at this first edition, the original title appears to be "The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D." This is the same title used by Britannica. * Life of Samuel Johnson This is the current title of the Wikipedia article, and according to Google Scholar, it is a name sometimes used for the book. * Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D This is the name that appears on the infobox image, it also appears on some results in Scholar. * The Life of Samuel Johnson The name used by The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Also appears on Scholar. I have no idea which of these is the common name. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Decolonization of the Americas → European withdrawal from the Americas – "Decolonization" is an extremely loaded and controversial word to employ when talking about the article content. The decolonization article itself says "The meanings and applications of the term are disputed." This particularly holds in the Americas, where there are zero independent indigenous countries. Is that actually decolonization? Some might argue yes, others might argue no. My point is not that it isn't decolonization, but that the question of whether it was decolonization creates problems. Therefore, I propose the page title be changed to this descriptive title that avoids controversy. Evaporation123 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kalotermitidae → Drywood termite – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Disclosure: I'm initiating this on behalf of my bug-enthusiast friend User:Bardusquus at their request as they're less familiar with the RM process. If both of us participate in this RM, please do not count us separately when closing for the purpose of determining consensus. In their view, "Drywood termite" and "Subterranean termite" are more recognizable and commonly used names than Kalotermitidae and Heterotermitidae. While I am personally too ignorant of this subject matter to have informed opinions on these proposals, Google Trends data demonstrates that the proposed names are more commonly used: Kalotermitidae vs Drywood termite, Heterotermitidae vs Subterrranean termite. For the Heterotermitidae -> Subterranean Termite move in particular, User:Bardusquus provided the following source: "The Heterotermitidae now encompass the three genera often referred to as “subterranean termites”, a term historically associated with “Rhinotermitidae” with an extensive pest status in the literature" [86]  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Music of Spirited Away → Spirited Away (soundtrack) –
Reverted closure
This closure was reverted per this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. If there is any desire to pursue the discussed questions further, a request for comment should be started at the relevant guidelines. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– I had moved these in accordance with what seems to be the practice for titles for soundtracks/scores of single movies, but my moves were quickly reverted. “Music of” is normally used for franchises! See special:search/intitle:soundtrack, special:search/intitle:"music of"_film. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zapatista territories → Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities – After the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) were dissolved in 2023 and reorganised into the Local Autonomous Governments (GAL), there was quite a bit of debate over the scope of this article in its talk page. Discussions were had about possibly expanding the scope of this article and moving it to a different title, with various different titles thrown out, but no formalised discussion was had on that. My opinion at the time was that the scope of the article itself would need to substantially change and expand before any article move was carried out, although I proposed a broader article on "Zapatista autonomy" might be worth creating. On 19 March 2025, LaborHorizontal (talk · contribs) carried out a unilateral move of the article to "Zapatista territories" (diff). Despite the move being carried out ostensibly to expand the scope of the article, most of the article is still specifically about the MAREZ, so all that really changed was the title (creating confusion as to what this article is about). The term "Zapatista territories" also set off alarm bells in my head, due to previous issues with the use of "territory" in other article titles; I searched the term up on Google Scholar, and the term is indeed in use, but it is a largely informal term used to refer to the area controlled by the EZLN (or by Zapata's ELS), rather than any specific governance structures established there (which is what this article is about). As the scope of the article has not meaningfully changed enough to justify a move, in my mind at least, I'm proposing this be moved back to "Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities". I'd also separately propose that anything taking a broader view of the territory controlled by the EZLN be its own article, rather than subsuming this one. Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mersa Matruh → Marsa Matrouh – Marsa Matruh" appears to be the more widely adopted transliteration in English-language usage, returning approximately 2,540,000 Google search results compared to 1,150,000 for "Mersa Matruh." This variant not only reflects broader contemporary usage but also aligns more closely with the native pronunciation. Previously contested in 2012 so I will list the request in the talk page. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Trialeti culture → Trialeti-Vanadzor culture – The overwhelming majority of contemporary academic/scholastic sources use the name "Trialeti-Vanadzor culture" for this culture, not "Trialeti culture." This is reflected in most of the sources used on this page (see: [1][2][3][4]). There is a precedence for numerous other cultures on Wikipedia (such as Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture, Lchashen-Metsamor culture, etc.) using these cultures’ full academic names in their page titles, regardless of Google results, geographic locations of the sites named in the cultures, etc. The argument that there are more Google search results for "Trialeti culture" is irrelevant. This is akin to arguing "Francis" gets more Google search results than "Pope Francis" so Pope Francis should be moved to Francis.

References

  1. ^ Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, Jean M. Evans, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) [1] (2008) p. 92
  2. ^ Daniel T. Potts A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Volume 94 of Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 ISBN 1405189886 p.681
  3. ^ Aynur ÖZFIRAT (2008), THE HIGHLAND PLATEAU OF EASTERN ANATOLİA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BCE: MIDDLE/LATE BRONZE AGES
  4. ^ Edens, Christoper (Aug–Nov 1995). "Transcaucasia at the End of the Early Bronze Age". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 299/300 (The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 60, 53–64. doi:10.2307/1357345. JSTOR 1357345. S2CID 163585471.
Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 02:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack – WP:NCENPOV states that massacre should be used in titles if it is the "generally accepted word" used to refer to an event in scholarly sources, or if it's part of the WP:COMMONNAME. This is due to the POV connotations. It doesn't appear as that standard is satisfied right now nor was it satisfied at the last requested move. Specifically, since the last requested move, WP:ARBPIA5 happened and inconsistencies in article titles relating to the word "massacre" were a major part of that case. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Weak n-category → n-category – This is a proposal to rename the article to "n-cateogry" as well as to move the materials on a strict n-category from higher category theory to here. The reason: while there is a genuine difference, a strict n-cateogry and a strict n-weak category are both an attempt to articulate the concept of an n-cateogry. And, in general, the conceptual side should triumph against the strict mathematical definition side. That attitude is actually common in Wikipeida; when there are some variants in definitions, we don't create separate articles depending on variations. Also, discussing strict and weak versions at the same place should make it easier to discuss stuff like coherent theorems. Taku (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Quadrature (geometry) → Quadrature (mathematics) – This would revert a move done without discussion by Fgnievinski on 25 September 2023. After the move, they removed the part of the article devoted to the use of the term in integral calculus, probably because they consider unrelated the two uses of term (area conputation and integral computation). I edited recently the article, and the new version shows that the two meanings are deeply related and deserve to be explained in the same article. So, the present vesion of the article is no more restricted to geometry, and this makes the article title confusing. Also, AFAIK, the article covers presently all uses of "quadrature" in mathematics, and the proposed title is thus the most correct one. D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Soviet Army → Soviet Ground Forces – As has been mentioned in an earlier talk page section, the name for this article is slightly misleading, as "Soviet Army" in Russian/Soviet military parlance refers to all the land and air services of the Soviet Armed Forces (as is made clear on Russian Wikipedia, where and refer to two different things). The Soviet Ground Forces was the official name for this force and is more accurate, since the article only refers to the land warfare service. Additionally it will be in keeping with the article for the Russian Ground Forces. Pave Paws (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vejce ambush → ? – A recent move made me wonder whether the current title is appropriate. I was also wondering whether a descriptive title like "Ambush near Vejce" would be more appropriate. Thus it would be great to receive input. I will list some sources that use both names as proper names. Vejce ambush:
    • 1 (p. 26)
    • 2
    • 3 (p. 8)
    Vejce massacre: *1 *2 (p. 54) *3 (p. 8) StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Galactic Center → Galactic center – The previous thinly participated discussion didn't come to a consensus on this, so let's try again. Sources appear to be majority lowercase by a good margin (see n-grams), and looking through them I don't find "galactic center" referring to centers of galaxies other than our Milky Way. It's clearly a term describing exactly what the words mean, not a proper name, even if it's understood to be the center of our particular galaxy. Also, the previous closer seems to be expressing a supervote, saying "Not Moved per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES", citing a guideline that doesn't clearly apply, instead of noting the arguments made in the RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
23:29, Sunday, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1288381176"