Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

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

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

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

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.

  • If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
  • Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
  • If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
  • Please make sure you really need technical assistance before making a request here. In particular, if the target page is a redirect back to the source page that has only one revision, you can usually move the page normally.
  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Hexastylis arifolia → Asarum arifoliumAsarum arifolium (currently a redirect back to Hexastylis arifolia) (move · discuss) – Per Kelley (1998), "Phylogenetic relationships in Asarum (Aristolochiaceae) based on morphology and ITS sequences", American Journal of Botany 85(10): 1454–67 (doi:10.2307/2446402), the genus Hexastylis is nested within Asarum and not treated as a separate genus. The current article content and history should be merged with Asarum arifolium. This requires a history merge. NShehan (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2025 (CT)
    Why does it require a history merge? jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NShehan if this requires a HISTMERGE, then you should request that first. It may make a mive unnecessary, and we certainly don't want to expand the mess by moving pages around. Toadspike [Talk] 07:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are just trying to do the correct thing after a similar thing happened with Draft:Asarum rhombiformis and Draft:Asarum_shuttleworthii. A move and and merge was what UtherSRG suggested and performed after I moved the old names to the new accepted names. KylieTastic (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@V.B.Speranza That sounds like a good argument for an RM, but not really an uncontroversial argument for a undiscussed move. cyberdog958Talk 14:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one uses the term “black comedy” anymore. Since when? In my experience, it's used all the time. I would also note that Dark humor converts a neutral title into an American English one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnerGenius WP:NUMERAL indicates that numerals zero through nine should be spelled out. Bensci54 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to move the rest of the articles/section titles to be spelled out, then? learnergenius(talk) 18:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxridge if you wish to proceed, you may open a discussion by clicking "discuss" above, filling in your rationale and submitting. ASUKITE 17:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Percy James91 Strong oppose. The article is currently the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it has many times more page views than the other articles combined. Annh07 (talk) 06:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "Add topic" (or "New section") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 27 June 2025" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 27 June 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 June 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 27 June 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025‎ (UTC)[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 June 2025

– why Example (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 27 June 2025

– why Example (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 145 discussions have been relisted.

June 27, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Rockstar (drink) → Rockstar EnergyRockstar Energy – The current name of "Rockstar (drink)" gives the impression that this article is about the beverage and not the brand. "Rockstar Energy" is the name of the brand specifically and what most people would recognize, as that is its common name. Reliable news sites like CNBC and the Hill also refer to the brand as Rockstar Energy.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Eisen, Amelia Lucas, Sara (March 11, 2020). "PepsiCo to acquire energy drink maker Rockstar Energy in a $3.85 billion deal". CNBC. Retrieved March 11, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Breslin, Maureen (1 February 2022). "PepsiCo unveils hemp seed-infused drink from Rockstar Energy". The Hill. Retrieved 10 June 2025.
EC for Golin (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 18:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Poaceae → GrassGrass – According to the guideline WP:COMMONNAME, it says:

    In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. 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.[a] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also § National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous[b] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People * Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) * Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) * J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) * Bono (not: Paul Hewson) * Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius) * Shirley Temple (not: Shirley Temple Black) Places * Germany (not: Deutschland) * Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) * North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) * Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster) Scientific and technical topics * Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) * Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) * Polio (not: poliomyelitis) * Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic) Product names and fictional characters * Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) * Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino) * Darth Vader (not: Anakin Skywalker) Other topics * Cello (not: Violoncello) * FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) * Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) * Proxima Centauri (not: V645 Centauri or Alpha Centauri C) In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".[c] When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[d]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

    — Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names
    Currently the article title for Grass is a redirect to Poaceae and the word "Poaceae" is a scientific term for grass that we do not use everyday but the word "grass" is the common word that we use for that plant.

Notes

  1. ^ This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals. "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.
  2. ^ Ambiguity, as used here, is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction.
  3. ^ Add this code in the search: -site:wikipedia.org.
  4. ^ Add this code in the search: -inauthor:"Books, LLC" (the quotation marks " " are essential); Books, LLC "publishes" compilations of WP articles.

Vitaium (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Discuss) – FEAR (terrorist group) → FEAR (militia group) – When I look at the cited sources, practically all of them refer to this as a militia group, and none of them explicitly refer to it as a terrorist group (although some might say the group's activities were terroristic). Per MOS:TERRORIST, Wikipedia does not generally use the label "terrorist" in article titles – the word is somewhat vague, POV, tabloidish and inflammatory. For example, of the 16 sources cited in the article, 9 of them have "militia" in their headlines, and none of them have "terrorist" (or any similar word). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Massview Analysis". wmcloud.org. Retrieved 27 June 2025.
  2. ^ "WikiNav". toolforge.org. Retrieved 27 June 2025.
Aoeuidhtns (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 26, 2025

  • (Discuss) – 2017 Hamas charter → Hamas Document of General Principles and Policies – The current title does not reflect how this document is most commonly and neutrally described in reliable sources, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. An analysis of sources shows that sources more frequently use "document" or similar terms than "charter", even when generously counting sources that use "charter" only with qualifications like "could be considered." Among sources that consider whether this constitutes a charter, there is no consensus, with some explicitly noting the document "does not replace the charter." The proposed title uses the official name given by Hamas, reflects the predominant terminology in sources, and maintains neutrality on the contested question of whether this document constitutes a new charter. If you're concerned about the length of the proposed title, please indicate whether an alternative 2017 Hamas policy document would be preferable. The current name is the result of a move that was done without a RM despite being clearly controversial and was challenged almost immediately here, so it doesn't constitute a stable consensus version. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cancún → CancunCancun – In 2021 there was an attempt to do this. At the time, people argued that since Zürich wasn't changed to Zurich, Cancún shouldn't be changed either. Now, Zürich is listed under its common English name, Zurich. At the time people were cherrypicking the subsection of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources), "WP:DIACRITICS", selectively using the phrases "The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters" as a reason not to move the page, yet ommiting the accompanying phrases, "when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" and "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources", respectively. Google Ngrams shows that "Cancun" has always been the common name in English. As stated above, the city's tourism agency ommits the accent in the English version of the website (in the same way Celine Dion's website does it in English vs. French). Spanish is not an official language in Mexico, and insisting that the accent is required merely for "respect for other languages" would support the argument for changing "Mexico" to "México", since that is the country's de facto colloquial name in Spanish. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Synthesis anarchism → Anarchist synthesis – When I hastily rewrote this article a couple years ago to deal with the previous version's bad sourcing (see talk page discussion with Graywalls), I didn't think to check at the time if the article's title had basis in reliable sources. I just now checked for it in the cited sources in this article, but none of them use the term "synthesis anarchism". Skirda 2002 talks about the "Anarchist Synthesis" (also shortened to simply "the Synthesis"), which was the title of Faure's original article on the matter. He also uses the term "synthesist" to refer to proponents of it. van der Walt and Schmidt also mention "the Synthesis" and use the term "synthesist". Avrich and Malet make no reference to any "synthesis", although their description of a "united anarchism" is connected to the anarchist synthesis by Skirda (and later by Zoe Baker). None of the primary sources listed in the further reading use "synthesis anarchism" either; all of them refer to the "anarchist synthesis" (or simply "the synthesis"). I searched for the term on Google Scholar, but the only cases of "synthesis anarchism" I could find from before this article was created in August 2010 were false positives (i.e. one sentence ending with "synthesis" and another beginning with "anarchism"). It seems that, a few years after this article was first created, authors started picking up the term. In contrast, I found 36 results for the use of "synthesist" in conjunction with anarchism, and 10 results for "Anarchist Synthesis", although this included a couple false positives. I was also able to find only one reference to "synthesism" in a 2008 article by David Berry. Jeff Shantz used the term "synthesist anarchism" in his April 2010 entry on the "Anarchist Synthesis" in the International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, but it appears that he originated this variant, as I can find no earlier references to "synthesist anarchism". It also seems that this did not catch on widely after that, with only 3 references to "synthesist anarchism" since 2010 (one of which is another work by Shantz). When coming across cases of suspected citogenesis, I've started checking Zoe Baker's book Means and Ends, as I know Baker has a rigorous approach to examining primary sources rather than just assuming Wikipedia terminology is correct. Sure enough, she uses the term "anarchist synthesis" and refers to its proponents as "synthesists" but never once uses the term "synthesis anarchism". As it appears that the terminology "synthesis anarchism" originated on Wikipedia in 2010, and as it seems clear to me that the common name for this tendency since the very beginning was the "anarchist synthesis", I'm requesting we move the article to reflect that. Grnrchst (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 25, 2025

  • (Discuss) – AZF (terrorist group) → 2004 French train bomb extortion scheme – There was apparently never a real AZF group; there was just a bomb threat extortion scheme (that involved constructing two workable bombs) that was attempted in February and March 2004 and was then abandoned. The scheme was primarily the effort of one man and was really too small to characterise as an organized group. There was no enduring organisation. The main perpetrator himself said AZF "n'était même pas un groupuscule" (was not even a small group). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Army of the Czech Republic → Czech Armed ForcesCzech Armed Forces – The Army of the Czech Republic is a literal translation of the Czech name of the military (Czech: Armáda České republiky) not supported by relevant official sources. Recent documents issued by the Czech Ministry of Defence in English (and cited in sources, namely The Czech Armed Forces Development Concept 2035 and Czech Armed Forces in 2022) use the term Czech Armed Forces. Similar example of such naming convention policy may be the Swiss Armed Forces (German: Schweizer Armee; French: Armée suisse; Italian: Esercito svizzero; Romansh: Armada svizra; lit. 'Swiss Army'). Mossback (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – "Yo mama" joke → Maternal insultMaternal insult – I know this discussion has been done before but I genuinely believe this should be moved to Maternal insult. Disparaging one's mother isn't exclusively considered a joke. Even the examples given in the article are mostly non-humourous. In fact, I think, in the majority of non-English languages such as most other European languages, Arabic, Hindustani, Persian, etc., insulting one's mother is usually taken as a serious insult. As a native Hindustani speaker, I can confirm that even simply "teri maa" ("your mum") is considered offensive, and "teri maa ki chut / ka bhosda" ("your mum's cunt/pussy") or anything like that is considered equivalent to "fuck you" with no humourous connotations. It's only recently, especially in English, that insults towards one's mother are taken jokingly. Even then, they're still considered insults—non-serious ones, but insults nevertheless. The article is quite clearly about both genuinely derogatory and humourous uses. So, some usages can be considered "humourous insults," as in they're just as a joke among friends etc. and not seriously offensive/abusive, but all usages including humourous ones are insults nonetheless, therefore, Maternal insult is the appropriate title. Also, another reason I don't think "Yo mama" joke is the right title is because the article isn't just about the "yo mama" trend (sort of a meme) but about maternal disparagement in general; I personally don't think stuff like the Rabbi Eliezer example would or could be considered a yo mama joke. — Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 09:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 24, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Sergey Nechayev → Sergei NechaevSergei Nechaev – I noticed that the current title doesn't quite line up with standard transliterations of his Russian name, so I dug around for different transliterations. I found that Sergei Nechaev is the most commonly used English transliteration by far, with 1,010 results on Google Scholar. In contrast, the current title "Sergey Nechayev" received 281 results; "Sergei Nechayev" received 212 results; and "Sergey Nechaev" received 171 results. According to Google Ngrams results, "Sergei Nechaev" has been the most commonly used transliteration since 1974 and has been the most used by far for a couple decades (it also disconcertingly shows that "Sergey Nechayev" has spiked in usage since this Wikipedia article was created in 2004). A Google Search also gives 132,000 results for "Sergei Nechaev", 86,500 results for "Sergey Nechaev", 24,900 results for "Sergey Nechayev" and 12,600 results for "Sergei Nechayev". As "Sergei Nechaev" appears to be, by far, the most commonly-used transliteration of his name, I'm proposing this article be moved to reflect that. Grnrchst (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Luton Airport Parkway station → Luton Airport Parkway railway stationLuton Airport Parkway railway station – Since the move is being contested, it's time for a full move discussion in the interest of getting consensus from the community :-) "[place] railway station" has become the standard naming convention for rail stations in the UK, with the obvious exception of London Underground stops. The only other article I'm aware of which goes against this convention is East Croydon station (there may be others that I don't know about, happy to be corrected), which makes sense as it is an interchange with bus transportation. However, Luton Airport Parkway is exclusively rail, even if DART is light rail. I'm proposing either of the following for the purposes of both naming conventions, and reader clarity: * Rename Luton Airport Parkway station to Luton Airport Parkway railway station, in accordance with convention due to it being a purely rail station or * Rename Luton Airport Parkway station to Luton Airport Parkway Interchange (open to suggestions on other/better options) along with other similar interchanges, like East Croydon - distinctly marking such articles as transport interchanges and not just "station". Danners430 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 23, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Mossad infiltration of Iranian nuclear archive → Israeli infiltration of an Iranian nuclear archive – 1. Attributing the operation to Israel in the title is clearer for readers, specially for those not familiarised with the subject, and makes the article easier to find. In Wikipedia we most commonly use country demonyms rather than specific national organs for titling articles. See the articles at Category:Mossad, all articles but two including this one do not mention Mossad in the title. 2. "of Iranian nuclear archive" is not proper English. I propose using "an" but I am not opposed to other proposals. We could also use "the" or even flip the title somehow to avoid this awkward wording (from the top of my head, as an idea, "Iranian nuclear archive infiltration by Israel", though that's also weird). Noting that I started this RM over the second issue and only thought of the first as I was writing the RM. I don't have a particular preference so long as the next title employs proper grammar. Super Ψ Dro 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Morning dew (disambiguation) → morning dewmorning dew – Unnecessary " (disambiguation)". The base topic is "dew" AKA "morning dew" (lowercase), the first list entry on the DAB page. The capitalized items (the lead entry, which is the primary topic for Morning Dew but not morning dew, and other list entries) are songs and a ship, and maybe more will turn up later. Given the mixed-case entries, morning dew is the appropriate title for the DAB page, we just don't need the parenthetical tacked onto it. Everyone looking for a song or ship knows that's capitalized (if they're competent to be using an English-language encyclopedia), and if they bork it up anyway, the entries at the DAB page will get them where they're intending to go.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 13:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gingalain → Fair UnknownFair Unknown – It is a general trope (aka tradition,[1] story type,[2] pattern,[3] or theme[4]) for a number of different characters, including the eponymous Tale of the Fair Unknown.[5] (The sample links above in particular classify Lancelot as a Fair Unknown type, and here for example is a discussion of Lancelot in relation to some other early instances of the "Fair Unknown romances":[6]) Gingalain is NOT the only other representative of such trope (etc.) and his excess material should be moved to Knights of the Round Table at the same time when the articles is being correctly retitled and quickly rewritten (it is important to also rewrite it while moving). Fair Unknown is right now just redirect but is actually the subject if this article, while Gingalain on his own is barely even covered as a character, thus should be moved to the the list of Knights as a new section. Actually I may handle it all myself, just notify me on my talk page after you change the title of this article here.

References

  1. ^ Archibald, Elizabeth; Edwards, Anthony Stockwell Garfield (June 16, 1996). "A Companion to Malory". Boydell & Brewer Ltd – via Google Books.
  2. ^ Walters, Lori J. (December 3, 2015). "Lancelot and Guinevere: A Casebook". Routledge – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Severe, Richard (December 16, 2015). "Arthurian Literature XXXII". Boydell & Brewer – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "The Arthur of the French: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval French and Occitan Literature". University of Wales Press. October 15, 2020 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ "Lancelot of the Lake". Oxford University Press. June 16, 2000 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Severe, Richard (December 16, 2015). "Arthurian Literature XXXII". Boydell & Brewer – via Google Books.
94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)94.246.147.217 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 22, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raidNuseirat raid – The term massacre is absent from neutral and pro-Israel sources and thus violates NCENPOV. Two reasons, the RfC on EuroMed as yellow and always attribute and WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which called out opinion pieces and failing to recognize authorial voice (newspaper quotes X who says massacre, therefore newspaper says massacre which is false). This is similar to Entebbe raid, and the AP (premier neutral source) has also clarified less than a month ago that the Paletinian deaths ocurred during a gun battle during the raid (see [36]) Closetside (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Andrew Boden → Andrew Boden (politician) – Now that we have an article about Canadian writer Andrew Boden, it's no longer clear that the American politician, who served 200 years ago, would be highly meganotable enough to keep WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights anymore, as his daily average over the past month is just two page views per day (with no page views at all on some days) according to the pageviews analysis tool. There's a good chance, further, that even his peak viewing day across all of 2025 combined, nine pageviews on May 29, might even have been attributable to people looking for the writer rather than a sudden spike of interest in the politician.
    I'm proposing a disambiguation page at the base title for the time being, as the Canadian writer just got his article today and thus can't be feasibly measured for meaningful pageview comparisons yet — however, considering that he's just coming off a significant literary award nomination for his debut novel, there's a good chance that we'll have to revisit it in the future, with far more chance of a living contemporary writer overtaking a fairly obscure 19th-century politician as primary topic than there ever will be of the obverse. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Garsh (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa → Jihadist insurgency in Pakistan – Pakistan's fight against terrorism is not limited to Khyber Pakthunkhwa (which is already a low-level insurgency) and has spilled over into neighboring provinces such as Balochistan with the growth of the Pakistani Taliban's presence there.[1] This move is also similar to how the article on Indonesia's nationwide effort against terrorism is referred to as Terrorism in Indonesia. The article was initially titled "War in North-West Pakistan" due to the fact that the Jihadist groups involved had actually held ground in both the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, as the insurgency is currently low-level with only a cycle of terror attacks, the fact that this situation has expanded to neighboring Balochistan[2][3] and has historically occured across Pakistan, it is appropriate to refer to the entire conflict as a Jihadist insurgency, comparable to Terrorism in Indonesia.

References

  1. ^ https://jamestown.org/program/pakistani-taliban-broaden-support-among-baloch-merge-with-separatist-groups/
  2. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2021/May/05/four-pakistani-soldiers-killed-in-terrorist-attack-while-fencing-border-with-afghanistan-2298778.html
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx27nx0j1kjo
MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Garsh (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 21, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Kamurú language → Pedra Branca languagePedra Branca language – My suggestion is to rename Kamurú to Pedra Branca. Let me explain: according to Azevedo (1965), there are records of four Kariri dialects (or languages?), namely: (1) Kipeá (well-documented by Mamiani), (2) Dzubukuá (documented by Nantes), (3) Sabujá, and (4) Pedra Branca. According to the same author, only vocabularies of 100 to 150 words survive for the last two dialects (or languages?), found in von Martius. Rodrigues (1948) notes that Kiriri is an alternative name for Kipeá, Kariri for Dzubukuá, and suggests that Kamurú may be an alternative name for Pedra Branca: “Pedra-Branca (Kamurú?)”. Pedra Branca was the name of a village visited by von Martius. From the Pedra Branca vocabulary, according to Rodrigues—and merely as a point of interest—there are a large number of Kipeá words as documented in Mamiani’s grammar. Also according to Rodrigues, “Curt Nimuendajú encountered a few Kamurú individuals” (although by that time, no Kariri language was still spoken…). Queiroz (2012) is more categorical in affirming that Kipeá, Dzubukuá, Sabujá, and Pedra Branca (which he also refers to as Kamurú) all belong to the same Kariri language family. The same is true of the only source cited in this article: “Kamurú* (Camurú, Pedra Branca)”. Apparently, the confusion stems from Ethnologue, which suggests that Pedra Branca is synonymous with Sabujá. In fact, I also cite: “Eduardo Ribeiro points out that the languages spoken by the ‘Cariri’ tribes of Ceará are essentially unknown. The only Karirian languages for which there is any documentation were those spoken in Bahia and Sergipe (Kipeá, Dzubukuá, Sabuyá, Pedra Branca).” My suggestion to rename Kamurú to Pedra Branca stems from the fact that the latter is the name used by von Martius, the only primary source we have for this language. Why rely on a name coined by Nimuendajú—one that has also caused confusion elsewhere—when documentation is so scarce and there appears to be no more established term? In such cases, I believe it is best to adhere to the primary source, which will always be revisited whenever the topic is researched. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 09:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Even if the dictionary definition did take priority, wikt:taskmaster is the only definition I can find that includes "supervises workers"; Oxford Dictionary of English, New Oxford American Dictionary and Merriam-Webster all define it as a person who imposes a harsh or onerous workload on someone (or words to that effect). Despite the fact that TaskmastershipTaskmastership redirects to Supervisor, I can find no evidence that modern usage of the word "taskmaster" indicates a synonymous meaning with "supervisor", so there's no reason why Supervisor would be the primary topic here.
Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 20, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Mallows's Cp → Mallows' 𝐶ₚ – (1) MOS:POSS is clear. (2) Mallows' is far more commonly used; a google search for Mallows's just redirects me. (3) I worked alongside Colin Mallows in the 1990's, and Mallows' is just the correct form to use; (4) The one reference currently in the article doesn't negate all this. (5) and the subscript p, italic C also should be fixed. Zaqrfv (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Na Woon-gyu → Na Un'gyuNa Un'gyu – Defaulting to MR per WP:KOREANNAME. Seems like there isn't a single dominant spelling. No results for any spelling of his name in ngrams. He clearly appears in English-language scholarly literature though, but haven't checked what they use. Note that "Woon-gyu" is ad-hoc and doesn't even fit the modern Revised Romanization system that South Korea uses. RR would recommend "Ungyu", and if you use the common modification of RR with a hyphen in the name, it'd be "Un-gyu". grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Capsule toy → Capsule toy vending machineCapsule toy vending machine – The current name of this article is very misleading, suggesting it is about the toys sold by this type of the vending machine. Instead, the article is clearly about the vending machines themselves. The article should be renamed accordingly. I am unsure if capsule toy should have its own article one day. For now it can safely redirect to the "capsule toy vending machine" article (note: it did not exist, I just created it now as a temporary redirect here). Side note: there is also confusion about how this topic is different from Gashapon, which on en and ja has a stand-alone article. But most interwikis here - i.e. to capsule toy (vending machine) article are known as gashapons in other languages. Compare: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11294641 vs https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1204526 . From what I can tell, Gashapon is a specific brand name of a capsule vending machine. I am unsure if any merge is needed (leaning no), but I wanted to mention this before someone suggests renaming this article here to Gashapon. Interwikis at wikidata might merit some cleanup too, sigh;in fact the Wikidata article is about the capsule toy (not capsule toy vending machine), although most of the interwiki'd articles, like ours, are about the vending machine. A mess. PS. What needs to be done: Wikidata needs a page about capsule toy vending machines, pretty much all interwikis from Q11294641 need to be switched to that page (it can be an intentional sitelink to redirect to our capsule toy redirect). I'll do it later this year if nobody jumps on this first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Brown–Forman → Brown-FormanBrown-Forman – The above RM was based on an error of fact. As noted in the post-hoc comment, hyphens are correct for a company named for multiple founders (regardless of whether they're correct for merged companies). That's is the case here. Brown-Forman is named for its two founders, not the result of a Brown company merging with a Forman company. The analogy to Hewlett-Packard is spot on. This needs to be moved back. oknazevad (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Standee → ? – Possible new titles include Cardboard cutoutCardboard cutout, Cardboard cut-out, etc. (I'm open to other suggestions!) I raised WP:COMMONNAME concerns on the article's talk page last month, but as there have been no replies, I'm bringing it here. A Google Books Ngram Viewer comparison between the terms standee, cardboard cut-out and cardboard cutout as nouns (here) shows that usage of cardboard cutout is significantly more common. Also, even though the article previously claimed that standee was an American term, neither Merriam-Webster,[1] the New Oxford American Dictionary,[2] nor the Oxford Dictionary of English[3] actually list this definition of the noun standee. (Many of the 'Recent Examples on the Web' listed automatically by Merriam-Webster are examples of this usage, but this only shows that the use of standee to mean "cardboard cutout" may be more frequent than the use of standee to mean "standing passenger", not that standee is the most commonly used term for a cardboard cutout.) As noted in the article, it's true that They are typically made of foam-board; if the title were changed to include "cardboard", it would be easy to expand this sentence to (eg.) Despite their common name, they are typically made of foam-board, to explain the discrepancy. I'm interested to hear what others think on this!

References

  1. ^ "standee". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun : a standing person : one who occupies standing room
  2. ^ Stevenson, Angus; Lindberg, Christine A., eds. (2015). "standee". New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199891535. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun — a person who stands, especially in a passenger vehicle when all the seats are occupied or at a performance or sporting event.
  3. ^ Stevenson, Angus, ed. (2015). "standee". Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191727665. Retrieved 5 May 2025. noun — a person who is standing rather than seated, especially in a passenger vehicle.
Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Fall of Maximilien Robespierre → Coup of 9–10 Thermidor – The current title centers on the personal downfall of Maximilien Robespierre, whereas the article addresses a broader political event: the orchestrated overthrow of Robespierre and his Montagnard allies on 9 Thermidor Year II. "Coup of 9 Thermidor" is a more historically accurate and neutral title. It is consistent with the naming conventions of similar events (e.g., the "Coup of 18 Brumaire") and better reflects the article’s focus on the political context of the Thermidorian Reaction, rather than solely Robespierre’s fate. Marissa TRS (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Quinn, Josephine Crawley (2014). "A Carthaginian perspective on the Altars of the Philaeni". In Quinn, Josephine Crawley; Vella, Nicholas C. (eds.). The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 169. doi:10.1017/cbo9781107295193.012. ISBN 978-1-107-29519-3.
  2. ^ Agbamu, Samuel (2024). Restorations of Empire in Africa: Ancient Rome and Modern Italy's African Colonies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 206–237. doi:10.1093/9780191943805.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-194380-5.
  3. ^ Anderson, Sean (2010). "The Light and the Line: Florestano Di Fausto and the Politics of 'Mediterraneità'". California Italian Studies. 1 (1). doi:10.5070/C311008864. ISSN 2155-7926.
  4. ^ Hom, Stephanie Malia (2012). "Empires of tourism: travel and rhetoric in Italian colonial Libya and Albania, 1911–1943". Journal of Tourism History. 4 (3): 281–300. doi:10.1080/1755182X.2012.711374. ISSN 1755-182X.
  5. ^ Parfitt, Rose (2018). "Fascism, Imperialism and International Law: An Arch Met a Motorway and the Rest is History..." Leiden Journal of International Law. 31 (3): 509–538. doi:10.1017/S0922156518000304. ISSN 0922-1565.
  6. ^ Segrè, Claudio G. (1990). Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life. Berkeley, US; London, UK: University of California Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-520-07199-5.
Meluiel (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 20:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C. → 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting – - Much of the discussion below was split into two categories: a) an immediate need to change the grammatically nonsensical title the article initially had, and b) identifying whether the final correct article would be centered on the death of Israeli embassy workers, the Capital Jewish Museum venue, or the names of the two victims. As noted, there was a consensus to speedy move from the nonsense title to something, although no clear consensus was reached on precisely what to move the page to. The page was moved by an editor on the basis of WP:IAR. That resulted in a better page title, albeit not a consensus and not the result of a full, proper requested move procedure. The move brought the page name closer to the original move request. Now that that request has been effectively vitiated, I'm updating the request to propose moving to the museum name title. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to update the move request; if this update should be moved to the end of this talk section or otherwise reformatted, please do so. This seemed more logical than creating a wholly new move request and starting a new discussion of the same merits. The arguments for various proposed names are discussed at length below, with no clear consensus reached or, to me at least, immediately evident. Jbbdude (talk) 21:2evan0, 25 May 2025 (UTC)  :Oppose, Oppose, Oppose - if there must be a change, the names of the two victims would be appropriate. The fact that they were Israeli Embassy workers is more salient and important than the physical location of the shooting. For example the Killing of Brian Thompson title doesn't reference the location of the shooting.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Astoria (recording studio) → Astoria (houseboat) – Astoria is a houseboat. Yes, she has a recording studio onboard, and yes, some epochal albums have been recorded and mixed in her studio, but a recording studio doesn't float on water. On the basis of WP:PRECISION (and basic ontology) Astoria should be described as a houseboat because she is one. I will declare my interests: I live about half a mile from Astoria, and can personally attest to her essential boatiness. I wrote most of the article for nearby Tagg's Island, including the sections on Fred Karno (first owner of Astoria). I am a middle-aged man who counts Pink Floyd among his favourite bands, and I was bitterly disappointed not to get tickets to the Luck and Strange shows at RAH. I note the contributions of editors who have duly recorded Astoria's linkage to Pink Floyd and Dave Gilmour, however Astoria did not hold a recording studio for the three-quarters of a century before Dave purchased her. There may yet come a time when Astoria no longer holds a recording studio, and begins a new chapter in her illustrious history. Either way, long may she grace the calm waters of the Thames, or any other body of water, as a boat should. I am happy to volunteer to tidy up links and redirects (the majority of which are transcluded in templates). Thank you for your consideration. Orwell'sElephant (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Transnistria War → War in TransnistriaWar in Transnistria – I thought the use of the proper noun Transnistria but not its adjective form was a bit peculiar, so I did a cursory search on Google to see if it is the common name. Google Ngrams returns no results for Transnistria War and plausible variants with the use of "war", including War in Transnistria, Transnistrian War, and War of Transnistria. Transnistrian conflict and Transnistria conflict return some results (conflict in / of Transnistria returning none), with the former adjective form seeing much more usage. However, Transnistria conflict is a separate article from Transnistria War with a wider scope, time-wise. "War in Transnistria" and "Transnistrian conflict" are the most used names by a significant margin in Google Search, Google Books, and Google Scholar. I'd rather not waste time copying-and-pasting all the links, but anyone can make the searches themselves and correct me if I'm mistaken. For consistency's sake, it may be preferential to move Transnistria War to Transnistrian war in conjunction with a move to Transnistrian conflict. A final note is that the Romanian and Russian translations provided in the lead also translate literally to "War in Transnistria". Yue🌙 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterionMono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
21:36, Friday, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1296220490"