Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

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: 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 is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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 page 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: ..."

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

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

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

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

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|NewName|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 NewName 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 7 February 2023" 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, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

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.

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 7 February 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 7 February 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 7 February 2023

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[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 7 February 2023

– why Example (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 7 February 2023

– why Example (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:relisting}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

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

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

Notes

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 51 discussions have been relisted.

February 7, 2023

  • (Discuss)Patriotic Alliance (South Africa)Patriotic Alliance – I get notifications when someone links to the Patriotic Alliance disambiguation page, and when I investigate it is always the South African party they intend. Google results suggest that the South African party is the primary topic and page views show the same thing - on only one day last year (7 February) did the views for any of the non-South African pages that could take the base title exceed the lowest number of views the SA page got that year (the SA page got 26 views or more every day, only on one day did any other exceed 21; on most days the sum of all the other views was less than the views for the SA page that day). Pinging the editors from the 2013 RfD that resulted in the current situation: @CHScribbler, BDD, and Nyttend:. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Big Bang (band)BigBang (South Korean band) – The name of this group is "BIGBANG". There should not be a space between these two words.1, 2, 3 Just like how Blackpink is one word, and not Black Pink, or how Coldplay is not Cold Play. A few articles have cited the name in CamelCase as BigBang, and a few others have cited it in normal case as Bigbang. The preference over the case can be discussed, but the space should be removed. Bostonite01310 talk 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakesTwo earthquakes hit the region. There is no consensus on the status of the 7.5 magnitude earthquake as an aftershock or a full on second earthquake. Per aftershock's definition, it is still considered an earthquake, so the plural form wouldn't be problematic either way it is considered an aftershock or another full on earthquake. But the suggestion of a single earthquake would be for the latter view. Ayıntaplı (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 6, 2023

  • (Discuss)I Am... World TourI Am... (Beyoncé tour) – There are multiple albums by multiple artists called I Am which could be easily confused as being the subject of this tour. For example, I Am Tour (Leona Lewis). The only differentiator between Beyonce's and Leona's tours is the elipses. The word "world" has been added to Beyonce's tour even though the tour poster says the tour is called I Am... Tour. Either way, easily confused and not obvious which is a primary topic. I'm not sure we should assume that Beyonce's the primary topic just because of her profile and the fact the tour was worldwide. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)AstarteʿAṯtart – The current page name is a Greek form of this ancient West Asian goddess's name. The native Proto-Semitic form of her name is ʿAṯtart, and all the other recorded variants of her name in various languages are derived from it. Therefore, I am proposing that Astarte be renamed to ʿAṯtart. Antiquistik (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Early iPhone processorsEarly iPhone systems-on-chip – Proposing a move to "systems-on-chip". It's the only accurate term, since these aren't "processors" (they're quite fundamentally different), and the incorrect title led to a nonsensical lead sentence. "System-on-chip" is a technical term, but it's now pretty widespread, so I don't think recognizability is an issue. I also think it's more encyclopedic to spell it out, rather than spelling it "Early iPhone SoCs" DFlhb (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Fish owlKetupa – IOC 13.1 moved 9 species from Bubo to this genus. Of the 12 species now placed here, 8 have "eagle-owl" in their common name and none of these normally eat fish. I propose that this article is moved to the genus name Ketupa. Aa77zz (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)FlybeFlybe (2022–2023) – While it was correct to have the operational airline as the primary topic, as like its predecessor, it has now also ceased, no longer the case. Arguably the airline that traded for 30 years, Flybe (1979–2020), is more notable rather than the one that lasted for less than one year, but that is debatable. Propose that this article be renamed Flybe (2022–2023) and Flybe become a disambiguation page. There was a suggestion in the section immediately above that the airline could be resurrected, that won't he happening as the administrator would have kept the airline flying and not grounded all operations immediately. Nukerstt (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mohammed Nadir ShahMohammad Nadir Shah – Correct romanization of the vowel ('e' to 'a') as per local Afghan naming pronunciation. - Furthermore, this spelling is used in this academic source[1], this Indian government source from the 1930s[2], and perhaps most importantly this official script of the Kingdom constitution from the 30s.[3] WR 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). WR 00:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 5, 2023

  • (Discuss)Come in SpinnerCome In Spinner – The title of this article should be rendered Come In Spinner, per MOS:5, as the word "in" is not functioning as a preposition, but as part of the phrasal verb to come in (a comparison could be made with the film title Carry On Constable). The phrase is common in Australia as an invitation or command in the game of two-up and can be parsed as "come in, spinner", where "spinner" is an appointed or selected official in the game. The book title is rendered Come In Spinner in at least one reputable reference, The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature (Second edition) as a major topic, and in that article repeated several times; also in the separate topics Dymphna Cusack and Florence James. Doug butler (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)HoshangabadNarmadapuram – With all the recent attempts to move this page via unorthodox methods, it's time to establish a consensus; it seems the name of this city changed and a new WP:COMMONNAME is being established. But can anyone provide evidence that this is the case? Jalen Folf (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mimi NdiweniMimî M. Khayisa – The subject of the article has been using Mimî M. Khayisa in a professional and personal capacity since 2021, and title of the article should reflect this change as per WP:NAMECHANGES. Here are examples of reliable English sources using her new name: [2][3][4][5][6] Based on her personal Instagram account: [7] this also appears to be her preferred name if that is relevant. Cinccino 💬 hethey 17:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Mohammed Daoud KhanMohammad Daoud Khan – As per native Pashto and Dari languages, his name is more accurately romanized as Mohammad with an 'a'. In the Afghan languages this common name is never pronounced as 'Mohammed'. WR 15:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)MaëlMael – This article talks about a number of different names, whose only commonality is that they come from Celtic words that at some point have been spelt with the letters "Mael", if you leave out the accents, as the English often do. Thus the article as it stands can not rightly be spelt with the accents of any one of the names, as it is more of a disambiguation of all the different names that might be confused by English speakers. Ideally each name would each have their own article with appropriate link, categories, etc. but this would take a considerable amount of work by someone well versed in all concerned languages. However that approach itself could cause problems if English speakers use the name "Mael" under the impression that it comes from various Celtic languages. Thus the easiest fix is to rename the page "Mael", removing all accents/diacritics. 121.127.212.32 (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Bank of England 10 shilling note → ? – The stable title was long "...10s note" until TheCurrencyGuy moved it without prior discussion. Their rationale was: "s" as the abbreviation for the 10 shilling note was rarer than "/–", have compromised between the two by using the full word. However, this means that this page's title is inconsistent with page titles such as Bank of England £5 note, where "...£5 note" with the pound sign is used instead of "...5 pound note". Therefore, I would like to ask whether we should move the page to "...10/- note" to match TCG's usual abbreviation for the shilling, or to the title of "...10s note". NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 4, 2023

  • (Discuss)Gaza flotilla raidGaza flotilla attack – "Raid" is a euphemistic term in the context that prioritizes the Israeli POV of this event as some sort of mundane military operation, when in fact it was a highly illegal act of aggression in international waters that was tantamount to piracy. In pure numbers terms, "Gaza flotilla raid" is not a majority or even dominant term for the events, and cannot be claimed as a WP:COMMONNAME. In news results, 2010 "gaza flotilla" attack actually returns more news results, at 2,090 hits, than 2010 "gaza flotilla" raid, with 1,630 hits. The same holds true for scholarly results, for which 2010 "Gaza flotilla" attack produces 1,390 hits, as compared to 817 hits for 2010 "Gaza flotilla" raid. Furthermore the scholarly results for "raid" plummet to 243 hits if you exclude the term "attack", while the results for "attack" still remain at 744 hits when you exclude the term "raid". Other terms used include crisis and incident, but these are somewhat couched, formal and imprecise. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Paul Jennings (slave)Paul Jennings (abolitionist) – Given current sensibilities, the term "slave" is outdated in favor of "enslaved person". Furthermore, Jennings is also notable for his contribution to the Pearl incident, among other abolitionists. I therefore propose we change the parenthetical to "abolitionist", acknowledging his actions rather than an uncontrolled identity. This matches the Wikipedia treatment of Harriet Tubman, who is listed as an abolitionist in the drop down when one searches her first name. The same first name search shows Harriet Jacobs as an "African-American survivor of slavery, abolitionist..." etc. It is time to update the page for Paul Jennings. Seeker095 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Seeker095 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ishrat JahanIshrat Jahan (politician) – Both titles are ambiguous. The first title is about a politician/advocate/activist who has been accused in several legal cases, so "Ishrat Jahan case" could describe one or more of those cases. But the other title is about a different person who was also called Ishrat Jahan, who is actually much better known. The "case" article gets more than 3× the number of monthly page views as the article about the attorney. Aside from one article being much more popular, the pattern of rising and falling in the page view counts of the two articles track each other very closely even though they are basically about completely unrelated subjects. The only thing that could explain this is that people are getting confused and sometimes looking at the wrong article when they seek information about these subjects. (There is also Ishrat Jahan Chaity, but that one seems like less of a source of potential confusion.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 3, 2023

  • (Discuss)Gun laws in WashingtonGun laws in Washington (state) – "Washington", as a place name, is ambiguous. Even setting aside George Washington, Washington, United States redirects to the Washington DAB, not to Washington (state). In the informal discussion above, there's been some discussion of whether Washington, D.C.,'s corresponding article being at ... in the District of Columbia is sufficient for disambiguation. Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. Thus, ... in the District of Columbia may resolve the ambiguity at that article, but it does not resolve the ambiguity at this one, no more than moving Washington, D.C. would make it acceptable to retarget Washington, United States to Washington (state). (I'm not even sure that ... in the District of Columbia is the correct title, especially as D.C. uses that form of its name less and less, but that's a matter for another RM I guess.) I'm open to other ways to disambiguate this, e.g. ... in Washington state or ... in the state of Washington, but I do think it needs to be moved from its current title to some unambiguous one, with the base title disambiguated. Courtesy pings @Mudwater, SounderBruce, and Reywas92. Note to closer: I have moved my previous DAB page to Draft:Gun laws in Washington. If this is closed as move, please move that back to mainspace. Is this is closed as keep, you can delete/tag the draft as G7 (linking to this comment), or just ping me and I'll delete it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Dave Roberts (outfielder)Dave Roberts (manager) – I think this should have an RM now, because I'm convinced (manager) is a better disambiguator. He is entering his 8th season as Dodgers manager and doesn't seem like he will stop any time soon. He is also Manager of the Year and a World Series champion as manager, while his playing career was not so remarkable outside of 2004 ALCS. It seems likely to me that, given his age, he will keep going as a manager for a while (not to endorse CRYSTAL, but it seems likely), and so will probably be better recognizable as manager than outfielder. --Quiz shows 05:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Dane talk 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)MaisieMaisie (film and radio character) – (Or a better title). At the moment, this article is the primary topic on Maisie (disambiguation). However there are a lot of real people and fictional characters listed in the Maisie (given name) article, and it seems strange to give this obscure mid-20th century character prime position. Looking at page views across all time, on the logarithmic scale, the given name article gets more views. I would like to suggest either no primary topic, or the given name as primary topic. The name came first, and is a more popular article (although neither receives huge number of views). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. The Night Watch (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences UniversityChattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University – The university’s official website now refers to itself as "Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University" and also appears to have changed the name on several social media platforms as well. There is also the "Category:Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University" in the Wikimedia Commons that would also appear to support the change. I feel the move may be controversial because other Wikimedia projects, such as Simple English Wikipedia, still use the term "Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences University." On this (English) Wikipedia, the main article on "Chittagong" and several related articles also still use the term "Chittagong" rather than "Chattogram" which is why I feel this should be handled as possibly controversial rather than a simple move. Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2, 2023

  • (Discuss)West Pole (disambiguation)West Pole – I doubt that the redirect to the rather obscure reference to a schism in neuroscience is the primary topic of this phrase, or that there is one at all. Move this title and quash the existing redirect. BD2412 T 21:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)PolesPolish people – I have been thinking about this for years, and I just don't see how there can be a primary topic for "Poles" when the common noun "pole" has such an array of meanings (note that "Poles" referring to Polish people is also a plural noun, an individual Polish person being a "Pole", and if they come from one of the extreme ends of the country, a "North Pole" or "South Pole"). There has recently been news coverage of the magnetic poles shifting, and imagery of poles on other planets, and a steady increase in the popularity of pole dancing. With 32,000 views per day going to the collection of articles at Pole, the thousand-per-day or so going to this title clearly falls short of primacy for the name. Move this article, merge Poles (disambiguation) into Pole, and redirect this title there as well. BD2412 T 21:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)"Yo mama" jokeMaternal insult – No evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore, even if it was, surely "mum", "mom" or "mother" would be more common than "mama". It could also be "ur" or "your", rather than "yo". Even so, "Yo mama" jokes are only one part of it; for example, Shakespeare's wordplay is certainly not a simple "yo mama" joke. This page was moved without a clear consensus, done in a bold edit, and without a proper RM. I suggest we have a discussion where consensus can be properly gained. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Capri SunCapri-Sun – In rewriting this article, theleekycauldron and I—both Americans—could not think of any reason it should be at the American spelling of the brand name. Capri-Sun was founded in Germany, is still based in Germany, and is primarily sold outside the United States; the United States is the only country (or maybe also Canada? unclear) where the brand name is two words rather than hyphenated. We should move to the more international title. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 1, 2023

  • (Discuss)Gurene languageFarefare language – My understanding is that "Farefare" is the most general name for this language in English. It's used by ISO 639/Ethnologue as the English name, and if I understand "Equisse grammaticale du ninkãrɛ au Burkina Faso" (page 7), "Gurene" is preferred in Ghana, and variations of Frafra are more general. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 31, 2023

  • (Discuss)The Haunted MansionHaunted Mansion – Requesting consensus. In sourcing and the article itself, the attraction is referred to as just the "Haunted Mansion" rather than "The Haunted Mansion". The inclusion of "The" needlessly complicates the system of redirects, as Haunted Mansion currently redirects to The Haunted Mansion as the original title. That was confusing, so I can try and clarify if needed. Alternatively, we could disambiguate the title to say "Haunted Mansion (attraction) or something along those lines. Please also consider the links at Haunted Mansion (disambiguation) to see some of the confusion. Thank you. TNstingray (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)William Pitt, 1st Earl of ChathamWilliam Pitt the Elder – Anyone can see that this is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, and the name that many respected sources (such as Encyclopædia Brittanica) use. These sources will show you that 'William Pitt the Elder' is the far more familiar term. You see, more people would know him as 'Pitt the Elder', rather than the more obscure term '1st Earl of Chatham'. Even on Wikipedia, when you search within pages for 'William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham', over half more results come up when you do the same thing with 'William Pitt the Elder'. (509 results for 'Earl of Chatham' compared to 1,750 for 'the Elder'). As a fellow contributor once pointed out: It doesn't make sense to have a "pitt the younger" in the list but no elder. Ollieisanerd (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Omega Red (rapper) → ? – This article name should be changed from 'Omega Red (rapper)' to 'O'Mega Red (rapper)' which is the correct spelling as requested by the subject themselves. Additionally, this provides disambiguation from other similarly titled articles such as Omega Red the Marvel character. When Google searching the subject, the current title does not yield results for the subject until well beneath the fold, with the current Wikipedia article being the first result. Almost all results are related to the similarly titled Marvel character. If, however, I search the title that I suggested, the first link is a rich link to the correct subject, with their music, videos, and photos AND the current Wikipedia article. Lastly, there have been question(s) in the talk section as far back as 2014 that reference the confusion of the incorrectly titled article, while each name usage throughout the article is correct. Shaintoth (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Cemil BeyTanburi Cemil Bey – Per WP:COMMONNAME and "Cemil Bey" is a very common name for people, making the current title problematic. There is Mehmed Cemil Bey, Mesut Cemil (which entering "Cemil Bey" also returns on the Internet), and so on. Cemil Bey simply applies to any Ottoman personality named Cemil. People will also scratch their head for just "Cemil Bey," and I have not encountered a single source that calls "Tanburi Cemil Bey" just "Cemil Bey." Ayıntaplı (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 17:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Template:China–Hong Kong border crossingsTemplate:Customs and Immigration Control Points of Hong Kong – Current naming convention is both non-sensical and sub-optimal, its existence is a testament to systemic bias on Wikipedia that caters to a small group of vocal users. Allow me to present my reasoning as follows for the change. (1) HK is recognized as a constituent part of not just China but the PRC. (2) Updated name follows the official conventions of the Hong Kong immigration department's English language website and the editorial standards of Hong Kong's English language newspaper of record the South China Morning Post. (3) The renamed template should be straightforward and neutral to all parties. It is possible to achieve this simplistically by avoiding the term "China" altogether; this template is, after all, Hong Kong-centric, not China-centric, not about borders of China proper, hence I don't think many would object to "China" not appearing in title at all (also this neutrally deals with Macau-HK control points). (4) Inability to translate in congruent fashion to and from Chinese - the corresponding Chinese article is titled Hong Kong-Neidi Crossings. (5) Many (perhaps half) of the "border crossings" listed on this template are in fact not border crossings at all - they are instead simply extra-territorial custom control points that are domiciled entirely in the "other"'s territory. (6) My proposed name should be stable for the long term - regardless of Hong Kong's political situation, level of autonomy, or beliefs of Chinese and Hong Kong editors.
    By the way, the proposal for the left-heading "China" would in this case be simply changed to "Entry" and "Hong Kong" would be replaced by "Exit". Alternative naming of this template can be "Entry and Exit Control Points of Hong Kong. Regardless of which title we pick, it is better than the current title, which is neither neutral nor stable. Colipon+(Talk) 21:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Lukáš Hrádecký → ? – This was discussed at fi-wiki where Hradecky himself (allegedly) wrote that his name is "Lukas Hradecký" on his Finnish passport and his Christian name and the name on his Slovak passport is "Lukáš Hradecký". So, if we don't use the name on his Finnish passport (because I don't know if there are any reliable sources available), then, at least, the á in his surname should be changed to "a" (some Slovak sources:[4][5][6] and more Google hits from .sk websites: [33]).
87.95.204.105 (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)LifeLockNortonLifeLock – This article is about a company whose name changed in 2022, per this article and the corporate site. The product LifeLock could possibly warrant its own page, too. The parent company Gen Digital should be considered. A possible understanding is that NortonLifelock renamed to Gen Digital after they acquired Avira, but the subsidiary continues with the former name. Chumpih t 04:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. The Night Watch (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Sick (2022 film)Sick (film) – Currently unnecessary disambiguation – as Sick#Film and television clearly shows, this film is the only film with the title of just "Sick". The other two films have unique titles that just start with word "sick", but which are unlikely to be confused with this film. And this can easily be dealt with at the 2022–2023 film article with a hatnote to Sick (e.g. using an {{Other uses}} hatnote). --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Maintenance (technical)Maintenance, repair and overhaul – This is per WP:NATURAL, which suggests that we should avoid parenthetical disambiguation if an alternative title exists. The proposed title is widely used in industry (as per the article) and more clearly denotes the topic than the current article title, which is kind of a head-scratcher at first. It's more in line with policy, it's more natural, and it's common enough to be acceptable to me; I am curious for your thoughts. Red Slash 22:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ashwin KumarAshwin (television actor) – A simple Google search of Ashwin Kumar will bring up Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan (also note the difference in page views). The first source, fourth source and fifth source (the second and third sources in this article do not mention his name) use the name "Ashwin" or "Aswin" with no mention of Kumar. Only the last two sources use the name "Ashwin Kumar". The sources on the page Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan use the name "Ashwin Kumar". Ashwin Kumar should ideally be a redirect to Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan or a disambiguation page for both names. Many people navigating to Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan will have first come to this page by mistake. DareshMohan (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References


See also