Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
This page 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. 135 discussions have been relisted.

May 25, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Farsightedness → Hyperopia – Nearsightedness was recently moved to Myopia [2] as it is the more commonly used medical term (as per WP:MEDTITLE), so this would make the articles a matching pair. Doing a similar test of "term + LASIK" on google scholar: * 15,900 hits for "hyperopia LASIK" * 12,100 hits for "hypermetropia LASIK" * 1,030 hits for "farsightedness LASIK" * 216 hits for "far-sightedness LASIK" (the old title for this article before it was moved to farsightedness) Hypermetropia is also a reasonable contender, but less common from what I found, on google scholar overall (ie. without including LASIK) it had 21,500 results to hyperopia's 55,000. However, if someone can find solid evidence that it is more prevalent, I would be supportive of that change instead. LQ192 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 24, 2025

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

May 23, 2025

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

References

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

May 22, 2025

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

References

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

May 21, 2025

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

May 20, 2025

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

References

  1. ^ Quinn, Josephine Crawley (2014). "A Carthaginian perspective on the Altars of the Philaeni". In Quinn, Josephine Crawley; Vella, Nicholas C. (eds.). The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 169. doi:10.1017/cbo9781107295193.012. ISBN 978-1-107-29519-3.
  2. ^ Agbamu, Samuel (2024). Restorations of Empire in Africa: Ancient Rome and Modern Italy's African Colonies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 206–237. doi:10.1093/9780191943805.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-194380-5.
  3. ^ Anderson, Sean (2010). "The Light and the Line: Florestano Di Fausto and the Politics of 'Mediterraneità'". California Italian Studies. 1 (1). doi:10.5070/C311008864. ISSN 2155-7926.
  4. ^ Hom, Stephanie Malia (2012). "Empires of tourism: travel and rhetoric in Italian colonial Libya and Albania, 1911–1943". Journal of Tourism History. 4 (3): 281–300. doi:10.1080/1755182X.2012.711374. ISSN 1755-182X.
  5. ^ Parfitt, Rose (2018). "Fascism, Imperialism and International Law: An Arch Met a Motorway and the Rest is History..." Leiden Journal of International Law. 31 (3): 509–538. doi:10.1017/S0922156518000304. ISSN 0922-1565.
  6. ^ Segrè, Claudio G. (1990). Italo Balbo: A Fascist Life. Berkeley, US; London, UK: University of California Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-520-07199-5.
  7. ^ Liu, Lu; Chen, Li (June 2023). "Demystifying China's police tactical units". International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. 73: 100595. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2023.100595. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
Melbguy05 (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Coalition (Australia) → Liberal–National Coalition – Reopening this proposal due to both recent events (the Liberal–National Coalition splitting) and length of time since the prior discussion. As mentioned prior, the current name of this article is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE, and does not accurately reflect the topic. Many highly reputable sources refer to a 'coalition' in the generic sense in relation to Australian politics, highlighting that a 'Coalition (Australia)' is a generic thing, not a thing that only refers to the Liberal–National Coalition (for example: the House of Representatives Practice (7th ed) which is used in Parliament by the Speaker of the House to refer to the rules of the house; the Australian Government's Parliamentary Education Office [22] [23]; the Parliament House itself [24]; the Australia Institute [25]; the Museum of Australian Democracy [26]). These sources highlight that what is typically referred to as an 'alliance' internationally is instead called a 'coalition' in Australian politics, meaning that 'Coalition (Australia)' absolutely should refer to that term. As also mentioned prior, there are other parties who have formed a coalition. Previous users have argued that these were not true coalitions, but 'minority governments' which is absolutely false according to these reputable sources. According to the rules presented by all of my prior sources: a 'coalition' in Australian politics is any formal arrangement between two or more parties to share power; a 'minority government' in Australian politics is one where a party is allowed to form government (by having its supply Bills passed) despite not having a majority of seats, and therefore has nothing to do with the concept of 'coalition'. The definitive Parliamentary rule and precedence guide also specifically refers to the Liberal–National Coalition as: [27] "Liberal–National Party ... coalition Governments", and refers to the "Free Trade–Protectionist coalition" between 1904 and 1905 and the "Protectionist–Free Trade–Tariff Reform coalition". This emphasises that "coalition" in these phrases is a description. It is not a part of the proper noun, much less a proper noun in its own right. This also emphasises that "Coalition (Australia)" is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE. Further reasons that "Coalition (Australia)" is incredibly WP:IMPRECISE is that the following are all examples of Australian coalitions as defined by (and often explicitly referenced) in those definitive sources: * the Alliance (Liberal–Residents Rally–Independents Group coalition; 1989-1991; fulfills criteria as per [28]); * a Nationalist–Country coalition (precursor to the Liberal–National coalition; 1922–1929; formal agreement present); * two United Australia–Country coalitions (LN coalition precursor; 1934–1939, 1940–1943); * several Liberal–National coalitions (initially a Liberal–Country coalition between 1946–1972 and 1974–1975; 1946–1972, 1974–1987, 1987–2025; formal agreement always present); * arguably a coalition of several small communist parties forming the Communist Alliance coalition (2009–2011); * the Emergency Committee of South Australia (a United Australia–Country–Liberal coalition; 1931–1932); * the Fair Elections Coalition (where the word 'coalition' was part of the party's registered name; Independent–Australian Democrats–Rainbow Alliance coalition; 1989–1991); * the Labor–Green Accord in Tasmania (a Labor–Greens Independents coalition; 1989–1990; formal agreement present); * a Labor–Greens coalition in the ACT (2012–2024; formal agreement present; preceded by a Labor minority government supported by the Greens); * the Minor Party Alliance (complex one which changed parties a lot; an Animal Justice–Australian Sports–Australian Voice–Daylight Savings–Family First–Fishing and Lifestyle–Justice–Liberal Democratic–Motoring Enthusiast–New Democrats–Sex–Transport Matters–WikiLeaks–Uniting Australia party coalition; various membership between 2013–current). * the Victorian Socialists (a Socialist Alternative–Socialist Alliance coalition, later party; 2018–2020). * the Reid ministry (a Free Trade–Protectionist coalition; [29]; 1904–1905); These are all, officially, coalitions. Many were also referred to as "The Coalition" in their time, indicating that "The Coalition (Australia)" or "Coalition (Australia)" could refer to any of them, depending on the time frame one is researching. Arguably the rename should be to "Liberal–National coalition" not "Liberal–National Coalition" because the phrase is not a proper noun and 'coalition' is not a part of a proper noun but a description. "The Coalition" is a grammatical error, the same as "the Opposition", because it refers to a generic role or descriptor. However I concede to "Liberal–National Coalition" as it has been adopted by many news sources. Whilst "The Coalition" most often refers to the Liberal–National coalition in recent history, that is a matter of bias: there is much more easily accessible media in the time that the Liberal–National coalition has been prevalent, and it is clear from historical sources which refer to the aforementioned coalitions that, at the time there was another coalition prominent, that coalition was also referred to as "the coalition". All style guides, grammatical conventions, and wikipedia guides would indicate that this article should be called "Liberal–National Coalition", particularly considering that there is no longer an Australian "Coalition". "Coalition (Australia)" is ambiguous and could refer to any of the above coalitions, or the concept of a coalition which is the Australian version of an alliance of political parties. Geordannik (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 19, 2025

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

May 18, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Moldovan European Union membership referendum → 2024 Moldovan European Union membership constitutional referendum – The referendum wasn't actually about Moldova's accession to the EU but about changing the constitution to include accession as a goal to the constitution. This is an important detail. Had the referendum failed, the ruling pro-European government would have most likely justified continuing the accession process based on the referendum not having actually been about joining the EU. Of course that most Moldovans treated it like such, but considering the clear majority support both before and after the referendum for EU accession according to polls, as well as the fact that it was widely seen by much of the population as a strategy by Maia Sandu to increase support for her re-election on the same day, it is likely that in this tight vote there were people who were not opposed to EU accession but disliked the framing of the referendum by the ruling government. This detail carries much relevance in my opinion. By the way, I am the one who decided the current title [30] (now I disagree somewhat with this edit summary). I think this deserves discussion and I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors, because the current title misses a bit the article's topic. I'd like that the title bring more attention to the constitution. Super Ψ Dro 23:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
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) – Dreadlocks → Locs – I am not able to amend the page correctly, but I believe it is worth asserting that many individuals, diasporas, and people groups advocate against the term “dreadlocks.” I understand it’s necessary to include this term on the page for reference and historicity. I just believe it should be renamed and lowered in priority as the term of first reference. Thanks. 209.76.207.20 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Transnistria War → War in Transnistria – I thought the use of the proper noun Transnistria but not its adjective form was a bit peculiar, so I did a cursory search on Google to see if it is the common name. Google Ngrams returns no results for Transnistria War and plausible variants with the use of "war", including War in Transnistria, Transnistrian War, and War of Transnistria. Transnistrian conflict and Transnistria conflict return some results (conflict in / of Transnistria returning none), with the former adjective form seeing much more usage. However, Transnistria conflict is a separate article from Transnistria War with a wider scope, time-wise. "War in Transnistria" and "Transnistrian conflict" are the most used names by a significant margin in Google Search, Google Books, and Google Scholar. I'd rather not waste time copying-and-pasting all the links, but anyone can make the searches themselves and correct me if I'm mistaken. For consistency's sake, it may be preferential to move Transnistria War to Transnistrian war in conjunction with a move to Transnistrian conflict. A final note is that the Romanian and Russian translations provided in the lead also translate literally to "War in Transnistria". Yue🌙 16:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Base (hate group) → The Base (organization) – I'm open to other options but "Hate group" is a terrible disamb in any context, whether true or not. For the same reason we have moved all articles using the (Terrorist) disamb lately, it is just sloppy. Sources largely describe them as neo-Nazi, militant, etc, which are clearer. This article also does not mention that they were designated a hate group by any of the organizations that do that? It probably was but given that it is not included here and they are not called a hate group in the article already makes me think that is not a very good disamb. I am open to other options but this seems the most basic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Google Knowledge Graph → Knowledge Graph – The feature is called "Knowledge Graph", not "Google Knowledge Graph". See [79] [80] [81]. Not only is "Google Knowledge Graph" an incorrect name, but it is also less WP:CONCISE than "Knowledge Graph". Per WP:DIFFCAPS, the difference in capitalization from the general concept of a knowledge graph is sufficient to distinguish between the two articles, so potential confusion is not grounds for arbitrarily adding an incorrect qualifier to a proper name. WP:NATURAL clearly states: Do not use obscure or made-up names. Besides, Knowledge Graph (capitalized) already redirects here, with a hatnote pointing to the other page, so if there were truly a risk of confusion, that redirect shouldn't be pointing here in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yahwism → Ancient Israelite religion – The current name is sadly misleading. Yahwism is not the religion of the ancient Israelites, it is an aspect of it. It may be an important aspect in the religion, it may be the only thing separating it from the Canaanite religion, but it is not the religion itself. As Glennznl wrote here: "I find the term "Yahwism" a bit unfortunate though as it suggests that the religion had already changed into a monotheistic one. "Ancient Israelite religion" would be less misleading and clearer."
    I wrote an article in Hebrew Wikipedia about the Ancient Israelite religion, and explained there the non-Yahwistic characteristics of this religion in more details, based on high-quality recent sourcer. I intend to translate this content to English; it might have been wiser to suggest this move only after the translation, but unfortunately I won't have the time for the translation in the near future. I will be able to translate a summary, if you want more details on the subject. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Darkstalkers 3 → Vampire Savior – Vampire Savior was the title of the game used for all regional versions of the game and is even used on the Capcom Fighting Collection compilation in all regions and it ought to be given more priority than the Darkstalkers 3rebranding that was exclusive to a single console conversion of the game. I was disappointed that I was not notified of the prior discussion, given I was somewhat involved in editing this article before. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Life of Samuel Johnson → ? – There appears to be various titles of this book, depending on the source. The current article is inconsistent: title says "Life of Samuel Johnson" but lead sentence says "The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D." Here are the titles and their potential cases: * The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Looking at this first edition, the original title appears to be "The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D." This is the same title used by Britannica. * Life of Samuel Johnson This is the current title of the Wikipedia article, and according to Google Scholar, it is a name sometimes used for the book. * Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D This is the name that appears on the infobox image, it also appears on some results in Scholar. * The Life of Samuel Johnson The name used by The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Also appears on Scholar. I have no idea which of these is the common name. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Decolonization of the Americas → European withdrawal from the Americas – "Decolonization" is an extremely loaded and controversial word to employ when talking about the article content. The decolonization article itself says "The meanings and applications of the term are disputed." This particularly holds in the Americas, where there are zero independent indigenous countries. Is that actually decolonization? Some might argue yes, others might argue no. My point is not that it isn't decolonization, but that the question of whether it was decolonization creates problems. Therefore, I propose the page title be changed to this descriptive title that avoids controversy. Evaporation123 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kalotermitidae → Drywood termite – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Disclosure: I'm initiating this on behalf of my bug-enthusiast friend User:Bardusquus at their request as they're less familiar with the RM process. If both of us participate in this RM, please do not count us separately when closing for the purpose of determining consensus. In their view, "Drywood termite" and "Subterranean termite" are more recognizable and commonly used names than Kalotermitidae and Heterotermitidae. While I am personally too ignorant of this subject matter to have informed opinions on these proposals, Google Trends data demonstrates that the proposed names are more commonly used: Kalotermitidae vs Drywood termite, Heterotermitidae vs Subterrranean termite. For the Heterotermitidae -> Subterranean Termite move in particular, User:Bardusquus provided the following source: "The Heterotermitidae now encompass the three genera often referred to as “subterranean termites”, a term historically associated with “Rhinotermitidae” with an extensive pest status in the literature" [83]  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Music of Spirited Away → Spirited Away (soundtrack) –
Reverted closure
This closure was reverted per this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. If there is any desire to pursue the discussed questions further, a request for comment should be started at the relevant guidelines. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– I had moved these in accordance with what seems to be the practice for titles for soundtracks/scores of single movies, but my moves were quickly reverted. “Music of” is normally used for franchises! See special:search/intitle:soundtrack, special:search/intitle:"music of"_film. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zapatista territories → Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities – After the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) were dissolved in 2023 and reorganised into the Local Autonomous Governments (GAL), there was quite a bit of debate over the scope of this article in its talk page. Discussions were had about possibly expanding the scope of this article and moving it to a different title, with various different titles thrown out, but no formalised discussion was had on that. My opinion at the time was that the scope of the article itself would need to substantially change and expand before any article move was carried out, although I proposed a broader article on "Zapatista autonomy" might be worth creating. On 19 March 2025, LaborHorizontal (talk · contribs) carried out a unilateral move of the article to "Zapatista territories" (diff). Despite the move being carried out ostensibly to expand the scope of the article, most of the article is still specifically about the MAREZ, so all that really changed was the title (creating confusion as to what this article is about). The term "Zapatista territories" also set off alarm bells in my head, due to previous issues with the use of "territory" in other article titles; I searched the term up on Google Scholar, and the term is indeed in use, but it is a largely informal term used to refer to the area controlled by the EZLN (or by Zapata's ELS), rather than any specific governance structures established there (which is what this article is about). As the scope of the article has not meaningfully changed enough to justify a move, in my mind at least, I'm proposing this be moved back to "Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities". I'd also separately propose that anything taking a broader view of the territory controlled by the EZLN be its own article, rather than subsuming this one. Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mersa Matruh → Marsa Matrouh – Marsa Matruh" appears to be the more widely adopted transliteration in English-language usage, returning approximately 2,540,000 Google search results compared to 1,150,000 for "Mersa Matruh." This variant not only reflects broader contemporary usage but also aligns more closely with the native pronunciation. Previously contested in 2012 so I will list the request in the talk page. Turnopoems 𓋹 ✎ 11:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Trialeti culture → Trialeti-Vanadzor culture – The overwhelming majority of contemporary academic/scholastic sources use the name "Trialeti-Vanadzor culture" for this culture, not "Trialeti culture." This is reflected in most of the sources used on this page (see: [1][2][3][4]). There is a precedence for numerous other cultures on Wikipedia (such as Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture, Lchashen-Metsamor culture, etc.) using these cultures’ full academic names in their page titles, regardless of Google results, geographic locations of the sites named in the cultures, etc. The argument that there are more Google search results for "Trialeti culture" is irrelevant. This is akin to arguing "Francis" gets more Google search results than "Pope Francis" so Pope Francis should be moved to Francis.

References

  1. ^ Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, Jean M. Evans, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) [1] (2008) p. 92
  2. ^ Daniel T. Potts A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Volume 94 of Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 ISBN 1405189886 p.681
  3. ^ Aynur ÖZFIRAT (2008), THE HIGHLAND PLATEAU OF EASTERN ANATOLİA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BCE: MIDDLE/LATE BRONZE AGES
  4. ^ Edens, Christoper (Aug–Nov 1995). "Transcaucasia at the End of the Early Bronze Age". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 299/300 (The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 60, 53–64. doi:10.2307/1357345. JSTOR 1357345. S2CID 163585471.
Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 02:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack – WP:NCENPOV states that massacre should be used in titles if it is the "generally accepted word" used to refer to an event in scholarly sources, or if it's part of the WP:COMMONNAME. This is due to the POV connotations. It doesn't appear as that standard is satisfied right now nor was it satisfied at the last requested move. Specifically, since the last requested move, WP:ARBPIA5 happened and inconsistencies in article titles relating to the word "massacre" were a major part of that case. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Weak n-category → n-category – This is a proposal to rename the article to "n-cateogry" as well as to move the materials on a strict n-category from higher category theory to here. The reason: while there is a genuine difference, a strict n-cateogry and a strict n-weak category are both an attempt to articulate the concept of an n-cateogry. And, in general, the conceptual side should triumph against the strict mathematical definition side. That attitude is actually common in Wikipeida; when there are some variants in definitions, we don't create separate articles depending on variations. Also, discussing strict and weak versions at the same place should make it easier to discuss stuff like coherent theorems. Taku (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Quadrature (geometry) → Quadrature (mathematics) – This would revert a move done without discussion by Fgnievinski on 25 September 2023. After the move, they removed the part of the article devoted to the use of the term in integral calculus, probably because they consider unrelated the two uses of term (area conputation and integral computation). I edited recently the article, and the new version shows that the two meanings are deeply related and deserve to be explained in the same article. So, the present vesion of the article is no more restricted to geometry, and this makes the article title confusing. Also, AFAIK, the article covers presently all uses of "quadrature" in mathematics, and the proposed title is thus the most correct one. D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Soviet Army → Soviet Ground Forces – As has been mentioned in an earlier talk page section, the name for this article is slightly misleading, as "Soviet Army" in Russian/Soviet military parlance refers to all the land and air services of the Soviet Armed Forces (as is made clear on Russian Wikipedia, where and refer to two different things). The Soviet Ground Forces was the official name for this force and is more accurate, since the article only refers to the land warfare service. Additionally it will be in keeping with the article for the Russian Ground Forces. Pave Paws (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attacks – No need for additional disambiguation (Hamas-led, Israel) in the title, it just makes it longer without adding enough benefit. Going off Google hits, "October 7 attacks" is five times more common than "October 7 Hamas attack" and almost 50 times more common than the full title. "October 7 attack" is even more common, but as there was clearly more than one attack, so the plural form is the correct title. As it has been established that this is the primary topic for October 7 attacks, this is a pretty routine request, but as there have been prior RMs, this is here and not at RMTR. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vejce ambush → ? – A recent move made me wonder whether the current title is appropriate. I was also wondering whether a descriptive title like "Ambush near Vejce" would be more appropriate. Thus it would be great to receive input. I will list some sources that use both names as proper names. Vejce ambush:
    • 1 (p. 26)
    • 2
    • 3 (p. 8)
    Vejce massacre: *1 *2 (p. 54) *3 (p. 8) StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Galactic Center → Galactic center – The previous thinly participated discussion didn't come to a consensus on this, so let's try again. Sources appear to be majority lowercase by a good margin (see n-grams), and looking through them I don't find "galactic center" referring to centers of galaxies other than our Milky Way. It's clearly a term describing exactly what the words mean, not a proper name, even if it's understood to be the center of our particular galaxy. Also, the previous closer seems to be expressing a supervote, saying "Not Moved per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES", citing a guideline that doesn't clearly apply, instead of noting the arguments made in the RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Technical University of Braunschweig → Technische Universität Braunschweig – Almost identical case to TU Berlin. *1.- The university has never officially used the name Technical University of Braunschweig. It officially states that the name in English is Technische Universität Braunschweig see here. *2.- Technical university is a misnomer/mistranslation of Technische Universität as it refers to a different type type of higher educational institution in the German system (TUs opposite to technical universities can confer all types of doctoral degrees including humanities, social sciences, law, medicine, etc). *3.- Many years ago, the university used officially the (more appropriate) translation "Braunschweig University of Technology". In 2018 the page was boldly (sic) moved from that to the current one based on a discussion in which no sufficient references were provided. *4.- Last but not least (actually, the most important point): "Technische Universität Braunschweig" is currently the most commonly used name in English language references, so this is actually the name that satisfies WP:USEENGLISH. SFBB (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Eg., in Italian: Monte tibetano-cinese, lit. 'Tibetan-Chinese Mountain', implies the mountain belongs to both Tibet and China equally, as separate entities, while Monte tibetano cinese, 'Chinese Tibetan Mountain', implies that this 'Tibetan Mountain' ultimately belongs to China.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1292121980"