This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
A 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 generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
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.
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.
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.
Delhi University→University of Delhi (currently a redirect back to Delhi University) (move·discuss) – Wikipedia says- "Delhi University (DU, ISO: Dillī Viśvavidyālaya), formally the University of Delhi" but in reality the name is and was always 'University of Delhi' as you can see at official Website of university - https://www.du.ac.in/ and you will not find any reference that says "University of Delhi is renamed as Delhi University". So please change wikipedia page title and mistake at wikipedia page. It is, it was always named 'University of Delhi'. 14.139.183.119 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right. There isn't much to go on, apart from a small role in a short film named Slasher Fest '85 and some modelling work (likely uncredited). Given her wrestling career didn't last long (19 matches), and she is better known as a backstage interviewer, might I suggest "Devin Taylor (wrestling)" as the article name instead, à la Michael Cole? APM (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}
Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 29 August 2024" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).
To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.
RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.
For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.
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)andCricket. 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:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
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.
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 "• SupportOppose".
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.
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
^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.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
DrKay and I have found ourselves in disagreement over the title of this article. At creation, this article was named like it currently is: Sophia Howe. Since she was a peeress suo jure (having inherited the barony from her father), I moved the article to Sophia Howe, 2nd Baroness Howe, which is generally the format for articles on peers – unless they disclaim the title, or don't use it (like for instance author Nicholas Mosley). DrKay moved it back to Sophia Howe with the comment Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator: mismatch of her maiden name and a title she inherited after her marriage. I can buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, but I find it peculiar that DrKay nevertheless kept it, while removing the title, which was correct. It seems to me that it flies in the face of his own edit summary. As I said, I totally buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, so I then moved the article to Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe; Waller being her surname when she inherited the title. DrKay has now moved the article back to Sophia Howeagain, with the edit summary bizarre use of unknown surname! What's bizarre?, I ask. DrKay complains the Howe wasn't her surname when she inherited the title, I move it to the surname that she had when she inherited the title, and DrKay moves it back again (never mind referring to WP:RMUM after they have done it themselves ... ). I don't know if anyone is move-warring here, but if so, it certainly isn't me. I have acted in good faith. So, what should the article title be? # Sophia Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this lastname is her maiden name. # Sophia Curzon (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 1st husband. # Sophia Curzon-Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), #1 and #2 combined, which is what her son, who inherited the barony from her, chose. # Sophia Waller (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 2nd husband. Vote 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, etc, with a=with "2nd Baroness Howe", and b=without the title. My vote is 4a.
(Discuss) – Pakistan National Congress → Bangladesh National Congress – There is no proof that Pakistan National Congress existed in Pakistan after Bangladesh Liberation War. The sources in the article clearly indicated that Pakistan National Congress became Bangladesh National Congress in 1971. It also participated in the 1973 Bangladeshi general election. On the other hand, Pakistan National Congress didn’t join 1977 Pakistani general election. In that sense, Bangladesh National Congress is the only successor of the Pakistan National Congress. Also, there is no proof we find that will lead us to believe that many politicians from West Pakistan were in this party, the names of the PNC politicians from the sources we find are mostly from East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh. It should be renamed to Bangladesh National Congress. However, if anyone can show us proofs stating many West Pakistani politicians were in that party then I would propose to rename it as "National Congress (1947–1975)". Mehedi Abedin14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ryan Whitney → Ryan Whitney (ice hockey) – Firstly, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between Ryan Whitney and Ryan Whitney (actress) (see similar page view numbers, suggesting equal readership). Ryan Whitney used to be called Ryan Newman, which is where all the problems start. However, after three years, two failed RMs, and a unilateral move by a user, we're passed the WP:TOOSOON stage. Let's say Ryan Whitney (actress)'s WP:COMMONNAME is actually Ryan Whitney (more on that later), and we manage to agree that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC, then, we need to move the pages accordingly and create a proper disambiguation page, instead of what is now at Ryan Whitney (disambiguation). Next, for the case of Ryan Newman (racing driver), the page needs to be moved to Ryan Newman, since he would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ryan Newman". We could leave a hatnote at the top so that readers looking for the former Ryan Newman, now Ryan Whitney, could find her. I don't think a Ryan Newman (disambiguation) page is necessary, but let me know. Ryan Dean Newman can stay as is, and we can leave a hatnote if need be. Alternate proposal: if you disagree with Ryan Whitney's WP:COMMONNAME being Ryan Whitney, I suggest moving Ryan Whitney (actress) to Ryan Whitney Newman, which is used in a fair chunk of sources and on places like her Instagram page. Ryan Newman (racing driver) is still moved to Ryan Newman, hatnotes are still left at the top, but that way we can leave Ryan Whitney (the ice hockey player) where he is, and just leave a hatnote at the top. Ryan Whitney (disambiguation) can be outright deleted. Ryan Dean Newman, no change but hatnotes where needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sol Kyung-gu → Sul Kyung-gu – Sul Kyung-gu is the version Sul uses, as he confirmed, it is on his English passport as well, it’s the version his agency uses, the version media outlets, reporters and even streaming services use for him. A lot of websites also use this name for him, using the correct version on here can clear up confusions people might get with his name and also show respect to the actor. Sul is the version used by most official sources now so that being used on Wikipedia as well can be great help to finally clearing up misunderstandings and help people. Thank you. Do let me know if source is needed for anything. ... Ku9979 (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wi-Fi 6 → IEEE 802.11ax – So this article was moved to the Wi-Fi 6 title in 2021, citing WP:COMMONNAME. However, all the other Wi-Fi articles (Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, Wi-Fi 5) use the IEEE technical name, rather than the "Wi-Fi x" marketing name. Thus I suggest moving this article to IEEE 802.11ax (without the "-2021" at the end, as it's not needed - WP:CONCISE; also the later articles don't have "-year" in the title either) to be WP:CONSISTENT with all these other Wi-Fi articles that are titled under the IEEE name. I'd say No one but advanced experts in this field would be searching for this article by its IEEE number, nor know what this article is about from its IEEE number. (from the previous RM) is not much of an issue anymore, as these Wi-Fi articles all now have a neat navigational template at the top clearly showing the "Wi-Fi x" marketing designations of each IEEE WLAN standard. Also, that's what redirects are for. — AP 499D25(talk)10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations that Hamas use human shields – The current title puts increasingly controversial claims in wiki voice. After 4 months more evidence, it is worth discussing this title again. Since the first two discussions there has been strong expert criticism of the IDF claim that civilian casualties are human shields, particularly by Francesca Albanese, but also by others. Even if some of the past allegations are credible or proven, the current title somewhat implies that human shield use can explain a substantial proportion of recent casualties. Adding "allegations" is the simplest and mildest thing we can do to fix the bias in the current title. "Allegation" might be a more acceptable compromise for some people who rejected "accusation", and this proposal is hopefully less confusingly phrased than previous suggestions. FourPi (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Moses J. Yellow Horse → Moses Yellowhorse – Searches of Newspapers.com for "Moses J. Yellow Horse" and "Moses J. Yellowhorse" return 21 results collectively. Baseball-Reference and SABR use "Moses Yellow Horse," Fangraphs and MLB use "Chief Yellowhorse" and Retrosheet uses "Chief Yellow Horse." (Career statistics and player information from MLB, or Baseball Reference, or Fangraphs, or Retrosheet) Whatever name we end up using, there is no need for his middle initial to be in the title of this article. The following Newspapers.com searches return the following results: *Moses Yellowhorse: 1,651 results *Chief Yellow Horse: 1,615 results *Chief Yellowhorse: 1,491 results *Moses Yellow Horse: 904 results Chief Yellowhorse and Moses Yellowhorse are roughly equally popular according to the Google Ngram Viewer (but I don't know how reliable that is because it also returns no results for "Moses Yellow Horse." I would support (and I think the data support) moving this article to Moses Yellowhorse, Chief Yellow Horse or Chief Yellowhorse. I can't see that there's a way to nominate multiple different titles though. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vladimir Putin's December 2021 ultimatum → 2021 Russian ultimatum – The title shouldn't have Putin's name in it, no more than Soviet ultimatum to Lithuania should be "Joseph Stalin's ultimatum" or 1939 German ultimatum to Poland should be "Adolf Hitler's ultimatum". These proposals were advanced on behalf of Russia, not Putin as an individual. "December" is not necessary since no other major ultimata were issued by Russia in 2021. As for possible suffixes, "to the West" is too informal, "to the United States and NATO" is too wordy, and "on Ukraine" is perhaps too presumptuous, despite the troop situation and the singling out of Ukraine in the draft treaties. — Goszei (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬 14:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–) → Northern League (ice hockey, 2005–present) – The current date range format for the first three of these hockey leagues doesn't seem to follow the usual Wikipedia convention. I found only 27 titles like this on the English Wikipedia. As for the fourth one, I found no indication that the older New Brunswick Junior Hockey League is a primary topic over the newer one, so I suggest disambiguation. Pageviews here. If we need to pick one of the two as primary, I suggest picking the new one. Some people looking for the new one are almost certainly landing on the article about the older one by accident. There is no hatnote to indicate that a reader might have found the wrong article. There is also a New Brunswick Junior C Hockey League article. Also, is it necessary to use "ice hockey" for the Northern League rather than just "hockey"? — BarrelProof (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬 08:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Magpul Industries → Magpul – The common name for this company is "Magpul" by far. There is no other similarly-named entity, and hence natural disamguation is not needed. In any case, the full name is Magpul Industries *Corporation*, and in places where the full name is used, it appears roughly as frequently as "Magpul Industries" as it does "Magpul Industries Corporation", hence there is no reason why the half-full name should be used. There could be an arguement that "Magpul" could also refer to the original product made by this company, but the company now retrospectively brands this the Original Magpul to avoid confusion, and in most cases when people refer to Magpul they are referring to the company not the product, which is only a very minor product in their current line. Elshad (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sid Eudy → Sycho Sid – Reposting on behalf of User:Rusted AutoParts, with the following rationale: "at no point was Sid ever known by his real name, so I find his being located at Eudy being confusing. I see there's prior rationale being debate over whether Sycho or Vicious was the common name. That'll probably be needed to be sorted through this discussion, but the point remains that to me, Eudy was not the common name, and is inappropriate the keep the page hosted at that location."162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bay Bridge Series → Athletics–Giants rivalry – The rivalry between the two teams will still exist in the short term (at least through 2027), though the scope of the rivalry will be zoomed out from the Bay Area (San Francisco/Oakland) to that of Northern California (San Francisco/Sacramento), being that the A's will play in West Sacramento for at least the next 3 seasons. By changing the name of the page to only include the team names, the scope of the article can better accommodate the new SF/Sacramento reality beginning next year. The Bay Bridge Series is now firmly in the past, but maybe the page move should be delayed until the two teams meet again (whether that be moving the page on the day of the next game of May 16, 2025 or before Spring Training 2025). Alternatively, maybe it's better for it to be effective immediately since the "Bay Bridge Series" is now in the past. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bento → Bento box – We discussed this in Talk:Bento (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 August 2024 recently - it appears that in English-language usage, the phrase "bento box" is actually very popular in sources, and unambiguously identifies what seems to be more commonly known as just "bento" in Japanese usage. The term bento box already redirects here since forever, so this change would be more of a technicality, but I'm bringing it up for discussion because that would follow the previous process more properly. So, per WP:AT, this change would appear to improve recognizability, naturalness, precision. It would obviously reduce concision a bit, but it seems bearable. I'm not sure about consistency, what would be a comparable example - perhaps how we use take-out instead of to go? This move would facilitate a measurement related to the previous discussion - it appears that the term "Bento" (uppercase) is a fair bit historically and presently ambiguous, while "bento" (lowercase) is less so, but it's not clear to what extent this is so - if we complete this move, that would become easier to measure. TIA. -- Joy (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Anarchism and naturism → Anarcho-naturism – A few days ago, @Czar performed a unilateral move of this page from "anarcho-naturism" to "anarchism and naturism", giving the edit summary "no source visibly uses this hyphenation; is not the common name". (diff) This is not correct. It doesn't take long to find the use of the term "anarcho-naturism" in the sources cited in this article; within a minute I found its use in Kirwin Shaffer's book Anarchist Cuba, which is cited throughout this article. Furthermore, it does indeed appear that "anarcho-naturism" is the common name: Google Scholar results find 53 results for "anarcho-naturism";[7] compared with 11 for "anarchist naturism";[8] 6 for "libertarian naturism";[9] 2 for "naturist anarchism";[10] and only 4 for the new page name "anarchism and naturism".[11] This article certainly needs work to trim the less reliable sources and remove unverified information from it, but I don't think moving it to a different title and then leaving it as before is a good place to start. As I can't undo the request and I'm not sure this counts as an uncontroversial technical request, I'm requesting this article be moved back to "anarcho-naturism". Grnrchst (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Richeza of Denmark → Rikissa of Denmark – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. She is not a widely discussed person in English literature, but the literature that does exist either uses the Swedish Rikissa or the Danish Richizza. The current title Richeza is a Polish variant of the name, originating from her grandmother Richeza of Poland. However, I don't see any evidence that this person would be called "Richeza of Denmark" in any reliable sources. According to WP:UE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. Here the appropriate language seems to be Swedish, since she is a Swedish Queen and more often discussed in the Swedish literature. See Google Books searches for Rikissa+Knutsson vs Richizza+Knutsson vs Richeza+Knutsson. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nicholas Bishop → Nic Bishop – There are two reasons a move makes sense. First, it seems he has more recently been credited as Nic Bishop (for at least 10 years, from what I can tell). Other pages and media refer to him as Nic Bishop. Wikipedia seems to be the outlier here. Second, there is another actor named Nicholas Bishop (who stars in Industry) and while he does not yet have a Wikipedia page, I see this has caused confusion regardless. For example, The Madness of George III mistakenly linked to this actor's page (which I have corrected). Starklinson (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Twitter → X (social network) – Before reading this move request, the comments written on the move requests I opened on this article and Twitter under Elon Musk should be read. I am opening this move request for a second and final time given wbm1058's closure of the latter move request two days ago, which is well-articulated and notes that the AP Stylebook no longer requires "X, formerly known as Twitter", as mentioned by an editor here. The New York Times does not mention Twitter unless in reference to an action or statement made prior to July 2023. The strongest argument that opponents of a move have—that Twitter is the common name—is a difficult claim to substantiate, even with fallible Google Trends data. The page notice and WP:COMMONNAME defer to reliable sources. Efforts to move this article in the past were premature. In terms of the claim that the history and cultural impact of Twitter should bear weight, I note that Guaranteed Rate Field is named such, though many continue to refer to the South Side baseball field as Comiskey Park. The use of parentheses in the proposed move target is unfortunate, but Wikipedia does not always decide what products are named. If X was the original name of Twitter, this article would be named appropriately. Threads (social network) is not named P92 or Project 92 because of an aversion of parentheses. This move request should not cover the status of Twitter under Elon Musk, though discussing a page move if this article is moved would not be improper. As wbm1058 stated, "scope-changing issues are problematic with project guidelines." Consensus would have been solidified if moving Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) had not been proposed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Reeves AN/MSQ-1 Close Support Control Set → AN/MSQ-1 – It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be either AN/MSQ-1 or including the system name and type like AN/MSQ-1 Coordinate Data Set. For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either "AN/MSQ-1" or "AN/MSQ-1 Close Support Control Set" (the redirect already exists for that one). It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Reeves AN/MSQ-1. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk) 22:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬18:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – H2X → AN/APS-15 – The article's lede immediately identifies that the only system discussed is the AN/APS-15. It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be like either "AN/APS-15" or including the system name and type like "AN/APS-15 H2X radar". For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This move would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either AN/APS-15 or AN/APS-15 H2X radar. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Martin AN/TSQ-8 Coordinate Data Set → AN/TSQ-8 – It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be either AN/TSQ-8 or including the system name and type like AN/TSQ-8 Coordinate Data Set. For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either "AN/TSQ-8" or "AN/TSQ-8 Coordinate Data Set". It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Martin AN/TSQ-8. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk) 22:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis → Jacqueline Kennedy – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Her sister's (Lee Radziwill) and mother's name (Janet Lee Bouvier) are both married names they are best known by, not of their subsequent marriages, as are those of every 20th-century U.S. first lady. Further adding: her fame comes from her being first lady and her connection to the Kennedys. She did not become famous because of her second marriage and remained known as "former first lady". Historically now, she is known as "Mrs. Kennedy" or "Jackie/Jacqueline Kennedy" by historians and in books, films, bios, etc. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Reeves AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central → AN/MSQ-77 – It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be either AN/MSQ-77 or including the system name and type like AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central. For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either "AN/MSQ-77" or "AN/MSQ-77 Bomb Directing Central" (the redirect already exists for that one). It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Reeves AN/MSQ-77. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401(TadgTalk) 22:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Islamic terrorism in Europe → Jihadist terrorism in Europe – The current page title is at odds and inconsistent with the page contents. The first paragraph begins by outlining the topic as terrorism perpetrated by jihadist groups and individuals, which Europol has defined since 2015 as "jihadist terrorism". The definition section then explains the meaning of "jihadism" and the page features the "Jihadism" series template. If the topic is defined in this way by the principal body monitoring this activity, as well as in the definition section and other parts of the page, "jihadist terrorism" would seem to be the correct terminology for the topic. It is also more specific and precise than "Islamist terrorism", of which "jihadist terrorism" is a subset. "Islamic terrorism" is a generally poor term that is essentially shorthand for "Islamic extremist terrorism", but here the far better and more specific term to use is "jihadist terrorism" - hence the usage by Europol and here for practically every entry throughout this list. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Every Time I Feel the Spirit → Every Time I Feel the Spirit (album) – Album takes its title from the spiritual song, which has been around logner. Despite currently being tagged for notability, I feel most Black spirituals of this sort have a long musical history and are likely to be the primary topic of any disambiguation unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Compare How Great Thou Art, which took the primary topic above multiple albums of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Frost07:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Puff-puff (Akira Toriyama) → Puff-puff (Dragon Quest) – The term and associated scenes is by far the most widely known from Dragon Quest, making its original name more appropriate. The origins of its parodies in other series almost certainly stem from Dragon Quest's wide popularity in Japan as well. While Toriyama may have used it in Dragon Ball beforehand, it's just confusing to not associate it with Dragon Quest when there is no evidence it's all over his other works and the fact that it was even used in Dragon Ball first feels like more of a geeky trivia note than relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jonathan Rowe (footballer) → Jonathan Rowe – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no other notable person with the WP:COMMONNAME of "Jonathan Rowe" on the English Wikipedia. On the Jonathan Rowe disambiguation page, there is another Jonathan Rowe who is a deceased journalist who wrote in the Point Reyes Light (newspaper), but who does not have an article of his own. There are also two Johnny Rowes, one of which is Johnny Rowe (footballer), an English footballer of the 1930s. Since there is no other article with a person that goes by "Jonathan Rowe", this page's title can be changed to that. I would also suggest moving Johnny Rowe (footballer) to Johnny Rowe and deleting the dab page altogether, at it serves little purpose, as there are only non-notable individuals on it apart from Jonathan and Johnny Rowe the footballers. A simple hatnote can be left for people not to mix up "Jonathan Rowe" and "Johnny Rowe". They go by different first names and were born a century apart so mix-ups shouldn't happen. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning.
Clickstreams from the last three months
From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream: :clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv: :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 28 :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12 :* Sloboda Boyar link 12 :* total: 52 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv: :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 32 :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12 :* Sloboda Boyar link 12 :* total: 56 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv: :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 17 :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 16 :* Sloboda Boyar link 13 :* total: 46 to 3 identified destinations Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – KJS → KJS (JavaScript engine) – According to a cursory Google search [15], there is no primary topic, and this KDE product has no prominence at all (even though it is the root of Apple Safari's and Google Chrome's JavaScript engines). Considering the state of the article, editors also do not consider it a very prominent topic. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sunbather (album) → Sunbather – Pageviews on Sunbather this month as of writing are 39 (I added 5 between yesterday and today while writing this, so the actual count would be 35); according to WikiNav, 28 people have been directed to the album through Sun tanning this month. Searching the title alone on Google gives me nothing but the album. I'm inclined to believe that people searching Sunbather are more likely to be looking for the album than what its current redirect is to. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Neuromorphic engineering → Neuromorphic computing – WP:COMMONNAME. The current article title is "Neuromorphic engineering" but the opening sentence talks about "neuromorphic computing". An Ngram comparison confirms that "neuromorphic computing" is a much more commonly used term. The suggested target has redirected to this article since it was created in 2011. The word "computing" is used three times in the first two paragraphs, while "engineering" isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Eric Chronicle → Eric's Chronicle – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The current title, "Eric Chronicle," is rare in the literature. A Google Books search for "Eric Chronicle" mostly returns results for "Eric's Chronicle" and an Ngram search also supports this. The Ngram does shows that "Erik's Chronicle" is slightly more common than the version with "c". However, since the protagonist Eric Magnusson is spelled with a "c" on the English Wikipedia, "Eric's Chronicle" is the consistent choice. —Comments on other variants: "Chronicle of Erik" is also quite common in the literature. The plural "Eric Chronicles" (links) is some Wikipedia oddity.— Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Michelle Smith → Michelle Smith (swimmer) – There are nine women and one man listed upon the Michelle Smith (disambiguation) page, with no strong indication that the Olympian from 28 years ago has retained historical renown sufficient to dwarf the combined notability of the remaining eight women. As an alternative option, I would support retaining Michelle Smith as primary among the women named "Michelle", but moving Michelle Smith (disambiguation) → Michele Smith. Among the eight women who have English Wikipedia articles, five are named "Michelle" and three are named "Michele", thus dropping the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" still appears to be relatively evenhanded and users researching the swimmer would not lose their ability to access her entry directly [the two WP:DABMENTIONS are the entry for co-author of Michelle Remembers and the redirect for male sportsman Michele Smith (cyclist)]. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Roar (vocalization) → Roar – Animal vocalization is the clear primary topic with the most long-term significance. Disambiguating it seems similar to if Apple was disambiguated to separate the fruit from the company. In dictionaries, the entries for 'roar' have no other definitions than animal vocalization, or topics related to making a loud sound. Other articles get more page views, but animal vocalization has more significance as a large portion of the articles listed on the current disambiguation page take their name from animal vocalization as either a metaphor or a derivative. On JSTOR, "roar" returns either results about animal vocalization or as metaphors of it. Note: A technical request for this move was contested prior to this requested move. Svampesky (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1950–1959) → List of F4 tornadoes (1950–1959) – EF scale was not introduced until 2007, unsure if the IF scale has been used to retroactively rate tornadoes from this period but almost every tornado from this period was rated on the F scale. Adding a discussion because I'm currently unsure whether the fact no EF scale tornadoes existed is more or less important than the consistency from year-to-year lists. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬16:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Papa John's → Papa Johns – Has been the trade name of the company for a number of years now. I am aware of the previous requested moves of this nature, but I believe it should now be changed. Google Trends shows that "Papa Johns" has a far higher interest over time for the past year than "Papa John's". Strugglehouse (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Bus Interchange → Christchurch Bus Interchange – "Bus Interchange" is a vague term that describes the purpose of the place. It may be technically the correct name, but only in the context of Christchurch. As this is a global wiki I think we should prefix it with "Christchurch". There are some sources referring to it by the "full name": 1, 2, 3, 4David Palmer//cloventt(talk)23:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) – St Anne's Church, Liverpool (1772-1871) → St Anne's Church, Richmond – or St Anne's Church (Richmond). The date range is poorly formatted, unsourced, potentially incorrect, and inconsistent with the title convention of other churches listed at Church of St. Ann#United Kingdom. "St Anne's Church, Liverpool" is ambiguous. One cited source seems to have the most information. It seems there was an original church and then another that replaced it in 1871. "In 1865 the Liverpool Construction Act was passed on 26 May 1865. Under the terms of this act, St. Anne's Street was to be extended into Cazneau Street. To facilitate this, the Act provided for the demolition of St. Anne's Church but its terms prevented the Corporation from pulling down St. Anne's before erecting a new church. The Corporation duly built the new church of St. Anne's at the corner of St. Anne Street and Great Richmond Street and the consecration of the new building took place on 16th November 1871." The map location seems to be along what is currently known as St. Anne Street, near Richmond Row. Is this article intended to cover both buildings, or only the earlier one? It seems to be both, as none of the other articles I can find are about the newer one. The later church was closed a full century later, in 1971. The source mentioned above and another source identify the location as Richmond or Richmond Street. It refers to the church as "St. Anne's Richmond" and "St Anne (Richmond)". Another source leads to otherrelatedarticles that say Dr. Richard Richmond was the name of a bishop (an unpopular one) there during 1773–80. Open to alternative suggestions. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Qi (Henan) → Qǐ (state) – Currently this is the only article in Category:Ancient Chinese states that isn't disambiguated by the word "state". Several other reasons for the move request: Qi County, Hebi and Qi County, Kaifeng are both in Henan; the 12th-century puppet state Qi was also based in Henan; and several other polities named Qi also covered parts or the whole of Henan (including the Shandong-based Qi (state)). Not saying that the word "state" is in any way precise (it's obviously not), but it's good to be consistent with other articles in the same category. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Waqar💬08:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – De La Salle Green Spikers volleyball → De La Salle Green Archers volleyball – The above existing pages have titles that do emulate the placement of a disambiguating sports descriptor after the team name, per WP:QUALIFIER. This style of adding descriptors has been prescribed by example by, among other similar college-sports WikiProjects, this page under WP:CBBALL and this page under WP:CFB for titles of pages about United States college teams. Clearly, these descriptors were prescribed in order to naturally disambiguate (by WP:NATURAL) a page about a team playing a certain sport from pages about namesake teams that are playing in other sports. In each of the team pages above being requested for moving, however, 1) the team name used is not that of its institution's team's uniform or collective name but the special nickname or unique moniker given to that specific team playing in its sport, so much so that the need for disambiguation disappears. 2) what is produced by the addition of a disambiguating sport descriptor after the team's special nickname is a redundancy. For example, there are no other De La Salle Green Spikers other than the De La Salle Green Archers team playing men's volleyball. For having a redundant title, the page's title then creates WP:OVERPRECISION and breaches the WP:CONCISE rule. That, however, can be salvaged by replacing the special moniker with the institution's team's uniform or collective name, a replacement which is what would have the need for disambiguation and erase the redundancy. Bagoto (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Power Five conferences → Power Four conferences – The Pac-12 has lost all but two members following recent college football realignment, and the vast majority of reliable sources now refer to a group of "Power Four conferences" instead of "Power Five conferences". Although media usage of the term (and its reflection on the media's underlying opinion of the strength of the conferences) should be the decisive factor, it is also relevant that the Pac-12 lost its status in 2024 as an "autonomy conference", which the other four power conferences have. See the second paragraph of this old edit for a slew of sources about how the Power Four has supplanted the Power Five. Orser67 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Killing of Hae Min Lee → Murder of Hae Min Lee – I'm aware that this has been discussed before, and that the consensus was not to move the page. However, there is an argument for restoring the previous title that was not considered during the previous RM. WP:CONSISTENT states: To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. In this case, multiple other pages on similar topics (i.e. cases in which a murder conviction was obtained but overturned and no other perpetrator was brought to justice) use the prefix "Murder of..." rather than "Killing of...". These include Murder of Maxwell Confait, Murder of Wendy Sewell, Murder of Alison Shaughnessy, Murder of Keith Blakelock, Murder of Marie Wilks, and Murder of Linda Cook. Like in these cases, Adnan Syed's conviction has been vacated (albeit this is being reviewed) and nobody else has been found guilty of killing Hae Min Lee, so the title should be changed to be consistent with the other articles. An argument was made by @Tamzin: that There is no way to call this the "Murder of Hae Min Lee" without risking the implication that Syed's murder conviction remains valid, but as it is widely known that his conviction is not in fact valid (indeed, this is likely the reason most people have heard of the case) I don't agree that this is the case. Nobody is going to read the word "murder" in the title and construe it as a proclamation that Adnan Syed is and remains her murderer for all time: the only thing people will take away from it is that she was murdered. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lady Henry Somerset → Lady Isabella Somerset – As mentioned in the article, this person "won the court case in 1878 and resumed the style of Lady Isabella Somerset", and after 1878 she used "Lady Isabella Somerset" as her official style. Because of this name change, the article title of this person in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is "Somerset [née Somers-Cocks], Lady Isabella Caroline [Lady Henry Somerset]", and the ODNB calls her "Lady Isabella" in the article. The British Museum also registers her as "Lady Isabella Somerset". There is also an academic article which calls her "Lady Isabella Somerset". According to Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes, "When this [a change of name] occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change". Since this person is called "Lady Isabella Somerset" in recent reliable sources, the name of the article should be "Lady Isabella Somerset". The move was already proposed in 2017, but it was not performed. saebou (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.FOARP (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Trois-Rivières Aigles → Trois-Rivières Aigles (1971–1977) – Thinking on it, long-term significance leans towards the current team being the primary topic as it's been around longer and has had much more coverage than the defunct affiliated minor league team that only played for seven years some decades ago. The current team has already lasted nearly twice as long as the old team, and shows no signs of going away anytime soon, so in my mind it's proven itself to be the most likely intended subject for someone looking up the team name. oknazevad (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE21:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) – The last time I requested this, I got the disambiguator tag wrong ('company' rather than 'train operating company'). Since its been a few months, and I am moving this to a different name this time, it should be acceptable (as in, not disruptive) to revisit it again. But anyway, similar to my previous rationale, the Midland Mainline TOC is long gone, and almost everyone searching for this is looking for the mainline, so I propose moving Midland Mainline to Midland Mainline (train operating company) then redirecting Midland Mainline to Midland Main Line. Even Google comes up with Midland Mainline first. I do get WP:SMALLDETAILS but I don't think it applies here since the primary topic is probably the mainline over the TOC. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ascalon → Ashkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name. I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names. 1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article. 2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [33], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21(talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lille OSC → LOSC Lille – The current title is wrong in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Firstly, the club's official name is not "Lille Olympique Sporting Club"-- that's what it used to be. Today, the club's entire official name is "LOSC Lille". "Lille OSC", the current title, is used by nobody both in common and official usage. In media, the club is often referred to as "Lille", "LOSC", and often times as "LOSC Lille". We could move the title to just "LOSC", but since the English-language "short" name for usage in articles is just "Lille", this wouldn't really work smoothly. I say we should go by the club's actual name in this specific case, which is also really commonly used in sources, only third to Lille and LOSC (which I don't believe are valid titles.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tales of the Jedi (TV series) → Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]