Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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=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

Done! SerChevalerie (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

That should be lowercase per WP:SENTENCECASE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Tule-hog (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also simply oppose. There are tactics, techniques and procedures involved in many activities. That's not what the article is about. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TTPs is a term in security studies applied to a broader range of attackers than terrorists. See APTs comment. Work has already begun on the article to expand the scope (should the request wait until satisfactorily expanded?). Tule-hog (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also non-attacking and non-security scenarios that involve tactics, techniques, and procedures. For example, political campaigns have tactics, techniques, and procedures. Nursing involves tactics, techniques, and procedures. Something is needed to identify a context. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've gathered, this is an acronym used specifically in security studies. Only references to the phrase TTP for nursing and politics I could find were in a military context. Tule-hog (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed as reported by multiple media outlets - https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/daiict-dhirubhai-ambani-university-9188881/lite/ ,
https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/from-the-assembly/81863020.html#goog_rewarded ,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/daiict-renamed-dau-ahmedabad-bill-passed-to-change-the-name-of-the-institute/amp_articleshow/108124120.cms ,

Alao the published act is out in public and at website which says " after clause (o), the following clause shall be added, namely:- “(p) “University” means the Dhirubhai Ambani University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, a University established under section 3.”." which you can get at this link- https://www.daiict.ac.in/sites/default/files/other-files/Amended_DA-IICT_Act-Gazette_June-2024.pdf (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common name still appears to be the page name per the official website and most sources. I suggest starting a requested move discussion. C F A 💬 16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham at Amplify "Mascot Books" is still the common name. The article is about "Mascot Books", not its parent company at the moment. C F A 💬 18:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to contest this one. While it would be consistent with many other plant genus at their scientific name rather than common names, this common name is well known among the public. It is almost as popular a common name as Tulip, another genus at its common name rather than at genus Tulipa. Evidence of popularity Google Ngram. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryffindor If you wish to continue with this request, please click the "discuss" link in your request above to open a move discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryffindor That title was rejected in 2020 at Talk:Bombing of Rangoon in World War II#Requested move 12 October 2020 due to confusion with Rangoon bombing. If you wish to continue with this request, please click the "discuss" link in your request above to open a move discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
13:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orders of magnitude (magnetic field)  Orders of magnitude (magnetic flux density) (currently a redirect back to Orders of magnitude (magnetic field)) (move · discuss) – I would move the page myself, but there is currently a redirect. The page does not compare “magnetic fields” – e.g. earth's magnetic field is much stronger than that of a neodymium magnet – but compares magnetic flux densities, measured in tesla usually right above the magnet's surface. Grufo (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grufo: There were some back-and-forth moves that happened in 2008, but this has been stable since then. For what it's worth, the last move comment stated, ""magnetic field" is used for B by physicists, while "magnetic flux density" is used by electric engeneers [sic], and most entries are beyond their scope." Either way, it probably qualifies as a potentially controversial move that needs to be discussed (via the "discuss" link above) to go back to flux density again. -2pou (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo I looked at this and I agree, while the last person who moved it has been inactive for a long time, if they had that opinion somebody else might. You can click the "discuss" link above to open a discussion, if you wish ASUKITE 17:13, 24 July 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 25 July 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 25 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:11, 25 July 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 25 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:11, 25 July 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 25 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 July 2024

– why Example (talk) 13:11, 25 July 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 25 July 2024

– why Example (talk) 13:11, 25 July 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.


  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.
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. 49 discussions have been relisted.

July 25, 2024

July 24, 2024

  • (Discuss)NusantaraNusantara (disambiguation) – When this move was nominated a year ago, the primary reason against such move was that it was too soon with the city then only in its planning stages along with doubts whether or not the city would even be completed. Now, in about a month the city would become the new capital of Indonesia, which I argue would make it the primary topic. The city also gets significantly more views than other topics with such name. Zinderboff(talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Au Hasard BalthazarAu hasard Balthazar – The result of the 'Requested move' discussion from August 2016, above, was to move the previous page to 'Au hasard Balthazar'. For unknown reasons, the move was made to 'Au Hasard Balthazar'. I propose a move to 'Au hasard Balthazar'. Rationale: * The film is almost invariably referred to by its French name in the English-speaking world, and is rarely translated. * The film is referred to as 'Au hasard Balthazar' by: ** French Wikipedia Au hasard Balthazar [fr] ** The article's external links to IMDb, Metacritic, James Quandt/Criterion Collection article ** Approx. half of the references ( I haven't checked all the books and magazines, and some of the links are broken) * MOS:FRENCHCAPS would specify 'Au hasard Balthazar' Note that the film's opening credits are stylised as 'au hasard bathazar', which doesn't support an argument either way. Masato.harada (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2024

  • (Discuss)Eights WeekSummer Eights – While referred to as Eights Week in the past, the event is far more commonly known as Summer Eights today. All University, College, and town publication, including all material from the actual organisers refers to the event as 'Summer Eights', not 'Eights Week'. Additionally, as referred to by the last move request back in 2016, there are far more common results for Summer Eights than Eights Week in search engines. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. OxfordRowing (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Douglas Fairbanks in Robin HoodRobin Hood (1922 film) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." and per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) "Common names – Sometimes, it is acceptable to use an alternative common name that is more concise or recognizable.". In all historical articles of the film I've read and most film databases, the film is known as "Robin Hood" not "Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood". The title alone makes it sound like a represetnation of acting in the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Toad (Nintendo)Toad (Mario) – The article was moved to the current title without discussion in April 2016 despite the most recent RM in 2015 being closed as "not moved". Video game characters are usually disambiguated by their primary series instead of their publisher company, even when frequently having cameo/crossover appearances, which Toad does not. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mia Mahey (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 22, 2024

  • (Discuss)Shin Hye-sunShin Hae-sun – With the continuing rise in popularity of actress <Shin Hae-sun>, the spelling of her English name has been up for debate for quite some time. Since her debut in School 2013, many have spelled her name as <Shin Hye-sun>; others have spelled it as <Shin Hae-sun> (a difference in Hye or Hae). In recent years, many have pointed out that her own signature and places like her agency (YNK Entertainment under IOK Company) spelled her name with Hae, yet, many sources continued to spell it as Hye since it was the most common spelling since her debut (Hye is also a common spelling amongst other Korean celebrities like Park Shin-hye and Kim Hye-yoon, adding to its credibility at the time). Here are some other reliable sources that correctly spells her name with Hae: KoBiz, The Korean Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily, and The Korea Times. It was only until last year that the actress added her English name to her Instagram account, spelling it herself as Hae. But due to the immense commonality of Hye across the internet, there wasn't a big change in how articles/sources/new fans spelled her name. As such, I am proposing that we change the spelling of her name to Hae, rather than Hye, as to fix the misinformation that is still at large. It is only right that we respect how the actress spells her own name. Imanomynous (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)UniformList of types of uniforms – This article should be merged into Military uniform, Nurse uniform, School uniform, etc.. The word "uniform" can refer to essentially any form of standardized dress, and this article currently just lists a number of kinds of uniform; the only real common part are the Buttons and Hygiene; the first is about button collecting, which has an article, and the second is about a tax deduction for uniform cleaning, which isn't really enough to write an article about and can be put into respective articles if necessary anyways. It's not possible to write a cohesive article about all kinds of organized dress, just because they're referred to by the word "uniform", all at the same time. I thought of trying to write a History section, but realized that I'd have to write about the development of military uniforms, police uniforms, nurses' uniforms, and McDonalds costumes at the same time, which doesn't make sense because "uniform" is not a cohesive topic. Most of the sections of the this article already have articles treating them. Work uniform (now a redirect) could be restored for that section. The Sports section I'm not sure about, but Sports uniform (also now a redirect) could also be restored. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 21, 2024

  • (Discuss)Transbay Transit CenterSalesforce Transit Center – It's been a few years since the last move request. I thought to start a move review, but was told to file a requested move discussion here instead. If the name Salesforce Transit Center wasn't common at the time of the last discussion, it certainly is now. * Keeping the name Transbay Transit Center does not follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations). Salesforce Transit Center is both the official name, and the common name. * AC Transit calls it Salesforce Transit Center, not Transbay Transit Center. This language is used widespread on AC Transit maps, service alerts, physical signage at bus stops, and digital signage on buses. * List of AC Transit routes has it as Salesforce Transit Center, not Transbay Transit Center. * The official SFMTA Muni Service Map calls it Salesforce Transit Center. * Google Maps does not recognize Transbay Transit Center. A search for "Transbay Transit Center" suggests "Salesforce Transit Center" as the first result. Riders and transit agency workers know it as Salesforce Transit Center. Locals and tourists know it as Salesforce Transit Center. Both commonly and officially, it is called Salesforce Transit Center. Tallneil (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)SpondyloarthropathySpondyloarthritis – I have a couple reasons so I'm going to break them down individually: # WP:MEDTITLE suggests the usage of the ICD for naming disease articles. The ICD classifies Spondyloarthropathy seperately under Degenerative condition of spine however the definition of Spondyloarthropathy used commonly is listed under Inflammatory spondyloarthritis. # Consitancy. The term Axial spondyloarthritis is used instead of Axial spondyloarthropathy. # Popularity. Most articles, both research and just general information refer to the disease as Spondyloarthritis, (examples:[10][11][12][13][14][15]) # Etymology. “arthritis” indicates inflammation of the joint, whereas “arthropathy” just refers to any type of joint disease. # Historical context: This group of disease has almost always been reffered to Spondyloarthritis, I'm not even sure where the term spondyloarthropathy came from. (This article goes over some of the historical context) # Most diagnostic criteria uses the term Spondyloarthritis. This is shown in this article that goes over the different classification criteria for Spondyloarthiritis. I know some of these reasons may seem trivial or aren't a part of the naming conventions however I wanted to be thourough with listing all the reasons I feel this is an appropriate move. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Anti-Haitian sentimentAnti-Haitian sentiment in the Dominican Republic – Article has always stood for prejudices and discrimination against Haitians in the Dominican Republic, a core social issue in Hispaniola, deserving a standalone article, regardless of the merits of a possible generic article which does not seem to be on the horizon short-term. This was the case both before and after the renaming, with the difference that the former title ("antihaitianismo") suggested a geographical containment of the topic while the current purely-descriptive English-language title does not. Asqueladd (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Palestinian genocide accusationPalestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Tales of the Jedi (TV series)Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 20, 2024

  • (Discuss)STEAM fieldsSTEAM education – The Slate article cited in the first sentence states that STEAM is not just a collection of five fields, but a movement to integrate creative thinking and design skills into STEM education. And this is how much of the article describes it. But the first sentence defines it as a collection of five fields, and the presence of "fields" in the title reinforces that definition. I think the lede would be more consistent with the sources and with the rest of the article if we change the title to something like "STEAM education" or "STEAM movement" or just "STEAM", and change the first sentence to something like:
    STEAM education is an approach to teaching STEM subjects that incorporates artistic skills like creative thinking and design.
    Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)AscalonAshkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name. I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names. 1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article. 2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [17], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 19, 2024

  • (Discuss)2024 CrowdStrike incident → ? – Two reasons: the first is that the lede of this article is straightforward; it instead say that there is an outrage, before saying how, where the title is derived from. Second, most reliable sources often refer this event as an outrage. The title should at least be moved to a title containing "outrage". ToadetteEdit! 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 18, 2024

  • (Discuss)Tonlé SapTonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all. In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake). So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation. My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is: #Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or, #Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page. The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on IsraelSexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity".[1] It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.


  1. ^ "What is gender-based violence? - Gender Matters". Council of Europe.
TRCRF22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss)2024 Nuseirat rescue operationNuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests


See also