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.
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.
Technical requests
Uncontroversial technical requests
Mast (botany)→Mast seeding (currently a redirect back to Mast (botany)) (move·discuss) – The three articles Mast year, Mast (botany), and Mast seeding were all merged around 2012. Mast seeding is an encyclopedically notable topic, but the most that can be done to cover "mast" itself is to give a definition, and some examples of what it is, which is what the article does. Most of this content focuses on mast seeding anyways, so it should be moved; the exact definition of mast can be discussed in a subsection if it is relevant. Technical request because Mast seeding is a redirect left over from the page move. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay1279 If the municipality is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then adding "Municipality" is unnecessary disambiguation. If you're arguing that the city should be the primary topic instead of the municipality, that would require a formal move discussion (click the "discuss" link in your request above). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abdülmecid II→Abdulmejid II (currently a redirect back to Abdülmecid II) (move·discuss) – His name is Abdülmecid in modern Turkish not really. for example Mehmed II is in modern Turkish is Mehmet but he was really mehmed and people also know him by that name.People know Abdulmejid II him as Caliph and know him as his name Abdulmejid or Abdulmejid II or Abdulmejid sani. I request to change it to Abdulmejid II Therealbey (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Official-Sensitive Not necessarily uncontroversial. The majority of sources refer to it as "HMP Prison Forest Bank." See WP:COMMONNAME. I suggest starting a RM discussion. You can do this by clicking "discuss" next to the page link above. CFA💬16:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how those apply when the change you are proposing is to the spelling of "Mujib" vs "Mujibur". To use your first example, Azizur is referred to as "Azizur" throughout his article, whereas Mujibur is referred to as "Mujib" throughout his (as well as in the sources of Second Mujib Rahman ministry). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pogenplain There were two attempts to move this in 2013 at Talk:Kutub_al-Sittah. While it's very likely that usage or opinions could've changed in the last 11 years, it would require a new discussion. Please click the "discuss" link in your request above to open a full move request. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)13:14, 17 July 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 18 July 2024" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
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.
(Discuss) – The Sun → The Sun (disambiguation) – I know, I know, the last discussion on this exact topic closed with consensus against. But the policy on the matter is clear, and the last discussion barely touched that policy at all. WP:PTOPIC says, first, that A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. With the wikinav entry showing that 2/3rds of people who visit the page are looking for Sun, that criterion seems to be met. You can argue that 2/3rds isn't high enough, but it's twice as likely than every other candidate combined. PTOPIC also says that A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. With all due respect to the newspapers, the Sun meets that criteria with flying colors. I don't see how it could be argued that the thing that sustains all known life doesn't have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than a couple of moderate-to-large companies. This seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
July 17, 2024
(Discuss) – Covanta → Reworld – Covanta was renamed to Reworld back in April. Since then, most people have been using the new name. This is not a controversial move, but I'm using this tool to request a move on account of my COI - I work for the article-subject. I'd also like to suggest a redirect from Covanta to the new Reworld title, replacing "Covanta" with "Reworld" throughout, and adding a "(previously known as Covanta)" at the beginning. NKR2009 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!23:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vespina (aircraft) → Airbus Voyager ZZ336 – I am a close watcher of aviation generally and military aviation specifically, and I had no idea what this article title referred to. WP:AT states that when article titles have multiple possibilities, "editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles." None of those are true to "Vespina (aircraft). Being strictly factual and naming it as <Aircraft (i.e. general type name)> <Registration (denoting specific aircraft> is much clearer. The current name is vague in the extreme. Mark83 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Quadrantal (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sněžka → Śnieżka – The mountain, located on the border between Poland and the Czech Republic, is widely recognized by its Polish name, "Śnieżka", in international contexts. The usage of this name aligns with global recognition and common usage in various languages, including English. Śnieżka is the highest peak in the Karkonosze Mountains and a prominent feature in both Poland and the Czech Republic. Given its location and significance, using the Polish name honors its geographical and cultural importance within Poland. Wikipedia’s naming conventions emphasize using the most common name in English, and "Śnieżka" is frequently used in English-language texts and references. This change would thus enhance consistency and recognizability for English-speaking users. Other geographical features with dual names often default to the version that holds the most international recognition. Renaming the article to "Śnieżka" follows this precedent and ensures coherence across Wikipedia entries. Paradygmaty (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – British support for Israel in the Israel–Hamas war → United Kingdom and the Israel–Hamas war – Not only match two other articles, Qatar and the United States about their role in this war, but a word like "support" isn't neutral even if the UK policy is to support Israel in this conflict. The article does make mention of opposition to the government support for Israel, therefore this isn't solely about support for Israel. The title should be reflected in a more precise manner than an outright position of support or opposition in the title. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Adumbrativus (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Chinese people → ? – I think this article should be moved to another title, possibly something like 'Chinese people (national)', and then the current title redirected to the 'Chinese' disambiguation page, because 'Chinese people' could equally refer to this article and to the 'Han Chinese' ethnic group. PK2 (talk; contributions) 06:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Maury Island hoax → Maury Island Incident – "Maury Island Incident" was changed as the title of this article and it was redirected to "Maury Island Hoax". The accurate name, which was previously correct and is cited in the article and reflected in various pieces of art, websites, regional references, and Washington State Legislation, is the "Maury Island Incident". Whether or not it was a hoax is not in dispute, but the correct name should be given in the title and URL for accuracy. As you wouldn't title something "The Moon Landing Hoax", the same equally applies here where "hoax" (arguably subjective conjecture) does not belong in the title or URL of this series of events and local history collectively known today as the "Maury Island Incident". A new section would be a better place to make the argument for whether or not this was a hoax rather than in the article's title and sprinkled throughout the copy/other articles referring to this one. SSRTACOMM (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC) SSRTACOMM (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nusantara → Nusantara (disambiguation) – When this move was nominated a year ago, the primary reason against such move was that it was too soon with the city then only in its planning stages along with doubts whether or not the city would even be completed. Now, in about a month the city would become the new capital of Indonesia, which I argue would make it the primary topic. The city also gets significantly more views than other topics with such name. Zinderboff(talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Eights Week → Summer Eights – While referred to as Eights Week in the past, the event is far more commonly known as Summer Eights today. All University, College, and town publication, including all material from the actual organisers refers to the event as 'Summer Eights', not 'Eights Week'. Additionally, as referred to by the last move request back in 2016, there are far more common results for Summer Eights than Eights Week in search engines. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. OxfordRowing (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions → Finalissima – I do not understand how the December move request was opposed. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, the title should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. The majority of the sources in the article uses Finalissima or Artemio Franchi Cup (which I hope we can agree is an outdated name), and very little refer to it as the "CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions". In fact source 1 of the article states that the "Cup of Champions" refers to the trophy and "Finalissima" is the tournament. Even a Google search of "CONMEBOL–UEFA Cup of Champions" gives you results on the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and European Rugby Champions Cup with ESPN the only major site that (outside of Wikipedia) that returns this tournament. Google "Finalissima" on the otherhand and it returns results for this tournament from sites such as Sky Sports, BBC, The Guardian, and most importantly UEFA. The women's and fustal version of the tournament have been named "Finalissima". So why isn't the men's if article naming is supposed to be consistent? Mn1548 (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Francis, Duke of Guise → François, Duke of Guise – This is my second attempt at this move request. The first was closed to no-consensus with a 3 support 2 oppose back in March. I am going to attempt to address some of the criticisms of the move raised in that move request and just more fully flesh out the reason this article should be moved. As before the grounds for the move are WP:COMMONNAME. In this ngram you will see a comparison of the relative popularities of Henri de Guise, Henry de Guise, François de Lorraine and Francis de Lorraine [4] Ngrams are not my favourite method of determining popularity as they tend to be crowded by noise, therefore I will primarily be using google scholar results, restricted to results in English publications since 2000 for a better understanding of the modern usage. Francis of Guise = 53 results Francis of Lorraine = 199 results Francis de Guise = 7 results Francis de Lorraine = 6 results Francis, Duke of Guise = 98 results Francis, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis, duc de Guise = 4 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 9 results Francis of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Francis de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Francis de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Total for Francis = 379 (give or take, there will be some noise in Francis of Lorraine/Henry of Lorraine and François de Lorraine/Henri de Lorraine due to other people of the same name) François of Guise = 11 results François of Lorraine = 20 results François de Guise = 230 results François de Lorraine = 210 results François, Duke of Guise = 76 results François, Duke de Guise = 5 results François, duc of Guise = 0 results François, duc de Guise = 83 results François of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 1 results François of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results François de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 18 results François de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results François de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 59 results Total for François = 716 (same disclaimed as above for Francis). 716 vs 379: a decisive majority of scholarly usage for the name François. Henry of Guise = 105 results Henry of Lorraine = 52 results Henry de Guise = 31 results Henry de Lorraine = 24 results Henry, Duke of Guise = 115 results Henry, Duke de Guise = 6 results Henry, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry, duc de Guise = 13 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 11 results Henry of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 1 result Henry of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henry de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henry de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 3 results Total for Henry = 363. Henri of Guise = 23 results Henri of Lorraine = 21 results Henri de Guise = 225 results Henri de Lorraine = 129 results Henri, Duke of Guise = 64 results Henri, Duke de Guise = 2 results Henri, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri, duc de Guise = 87 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 2 results Henri of Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri of Lorraine, duc de Guise = 1 result Henri de Lorraine, Duke of Guise = 7 results Henri de Lorraine, Duke de Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc of Guise = 0 results Henri de Lorraine, duc de Guise = 27 results Total for Henri = 588. 588 vs 363 another decisive margin. The google scholar searches for Henri function as evidence for both Henry/Henri I, and Henry/Henri II, as using the numerals would massively depreciate the numbers returned. In addressing the point raised by Srnec in the prior move, we have a majority in English scholarship for the names François and Henri, we do not have a majority for duc de Guise over duke of Guise for the article title (131 duc vs 209 duke for Henri and 149 duc vs 205 duke for François). Beyond the statistical evidence in support of its common usage, I would like to also draw on particular scholarship as I did for my first move request. This will be based on English language scholarship covering the periods of the Italian Wars and the French Wars of Religion covering the life span of François and Henri I, I have less specific scholarship examples for Henri II, however he is covered in a couple of these and the statistical evidence. The first and most important work is the recent (2011) biography of the Guise family 'Martyrs and Murderers: the Guise family and the making of Europe' written by the historian Stuart Carroll. This biography refers to the dukes as follows: François, Henri, Henri. There is also the recent work by the historian Mark Konnert in which they are a title feature (Local Politics in the French Wars of Religion: The Towns of Champagne, the duc de Guise and the Catholic League (1560-1595)) which likewise uses François and Henri. I will include the survey of academic English literature I included in my first move request, with slight additions for academics I have since become aware of. Gould [history of the French Wars of Religion in the south of the kingdom] (2006) = François; Roelker [biography of Jeanne d'Albret] (1968) = François, Henri; Knecht [biography of Catherine de' Medici] (2014) = François, Henri; Diefendorf [history of Paris in the prelude to the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre] (1991) = François, Henri; Roberts [history of the peace making efforts during the wars] (2013) = François, Henri; Sutherland [history of the secretaries of state in the era of Catherine] (1962) = François, Henri; Tullchin (2012) = François, Henri;; Baumgartner (1986) = Henri; Harding (1978) = François, Henri; Heller (2003) = Henri; Potter (1997) = François, Henri; Carroll (2005) = François, Henri; Bernstein (2004) = Henri; Konnert (1997) = François, Henri; Benedict (2003) = François, Henri; Salmon [introduction to French sixteenth century history] (1979) = François, Henri; Shaw (2019) [only English language survey of the Italian Wars] = François; Pitts [biography of Henri IV of France] (2012) = François, Henri; Neuschel (1989) = François; Kingdon (1967) = François, Henri; Greengrass (1988) = François; Conner (2000) = François; Spangler [chief historian of the Guise family in the 17th century, i.e. Henri II] (2016) = Henri, Heap (2019) = François, Henri. Tingle [history of Nantes during the French Wars of Religion] (2006) is a little unusual, refers to François, and Henry; likewise Shimizu [dissertation on Gaspard de Coligny] (1970) refers to Francis, and Henri Holt [biography of the duc d'Anjou] (2002) = Francis, Henry, he is the only French Wars of Religion era academic I am aware of who throughout all his works consistently calls them this way. Wood [military history of the early French Wars of Religion] (2002) never refers to either duke by their first name In some of the above I have detailed the nature of the book in square brackets to indicate the mixture of popular biographies, introductory surveys and more focused studies of various institutions and regions that build this picture. In addition to my common move argument, it is also of note that the article for the seventh duke of Guise is at François Joseph, Duke of Guise so the present state of affairs in addition to violating common usage, also creates a weird discordance in the line of dukes. sovietblobfish (talk) 15:16, 14 July 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)[reply]
(Discuss) – Free Press (organization) → ? – All of these titles are too ambiguous to form good disambiguators - the first and third cases are ambiguous with each other (the article company describes nonprofits as a type of company and "media" is sufficiently vague that this article could be described as media-related). Unfortunately both are American so that doesn't work, and both are still active so the next attempt of disambiguating by year would be odd. Any better suggestions? Meanwhile Free Press (magazine) can be moved to be much clearer about the subject without any conflicts given that the dab page describes The Free Press (media company) as a magazine. * Pppery *it has begun...03:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Magic (company) → Magic, Inc. (magic goods company) – WP:AT ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. The organization described at Magic, Inc. (organization) appears to be a non-profit corporation that calls itself "Magic". The full name of this magic store is "Magic, Inc." ... so both short and long form names are ambiguous. The various professional sports teams named "Magic" are for-profit companies. The various radio stations are also companies. WP:PRECISE better disambiguation is needed to identify the topic. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Rhodine Sikumba → Rodney Sikumba – Rodney Sikumba is the WP:COMMONNAME for this person and he is normally referred to by that name by Zambians, as seen at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more (I primarily used Google Search News to find these). It seems like only governmental websites like parliament.org.zm are the ones that refer to him as Rhodine Sikumba and as such, it is not his "Common Name" (I suppose it is his "Official Name"). As an add (although irrelevant), he has named all his official social media pages with the name Rodney Malindi Sikumba, as can be seen by typing his name on Google Search. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Template:GPL-3 → Template:GPL-3+ – This is due to a merger on Commons. c:Template:GPLv3 is getting deprecated and redirected to c:Template:GPLv3 only in due course, while c:Template:GPLv3+ will take on the role of GPLv3. You can read about this merger at c:Template talk:GPLv3. Naturally, c:Template:GPL-3 will also be re-redirected to GPLv3 only soon, which creates a problem. If a file with this template is moved with a tool like mtc-cli after GPL-3 is redirected to GPLv3 only, then we have effectively got a licensing change (GPLv3 or later -> GPLv3 only). Therefore, it is structurally necessary to move this template to GPL-3+. Furthermore, the SPDX (which is like a database of licenses) to identify GPLv3 only is actually GPL-3.0, so it makes little sense to keep this template here. IMPORTANT NOTE TO CLOSERS if this discussion is closed as move, it needs to occur without redirect and all transclusions and links to this template need to be replaced. This is due to the above problems. I can do this if you want. Pinging members of Commons discussion: @Liuxinyu970226, Gabldotink, and 0x0a —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Café Filho → João Café Filho – "Filho" is a Portuguese suffix, so the current title is basically just "Café Jr" without any first name. The page title should be renamed so that the first name is included, additionally bringing it in line with other languages (e.g. Italian, Spanish, German) Maluwag54321 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Shakti pitha → Shakta pithas – Not really a very strong support from my end, but regardless, I thought this might merit a discussion among the WP community for the record. While contemporary usage among the vast Hindi-speaking population in India seems to prefer "Shakti pithas", references to the subject in traditional Hindu religious literature is unanimously as "Shakta pithas", so no wonder that every major scholar on Shaktism or Tantra has used that term. The only book on this topic even to this day is by the noted historian Dineshchandra Sircar. Other academic sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Also important to note here that the present scholarly consensus is that this very concept took shape in Bengal, so the fact that even historian Sachidananda Sarkar refers to the topic as "Shakta pithas" in his Bengali book মহাতীর্থ একান্নপীঠের সন্ধানে might be relevant to consider. Thanks. JovianEclipse 13:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!19:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kim Seung-min → Seungmin – Requesting to move from "Kim Seung-min" to "Seungmin" (currently a redirect) as per WP:COMMONNAME. The article itself states that the subject of this article is "commonly known as Seungmin" and not as his full name. The subject of this article is not nor has he ever been commonly known by the general public as "Kim Seung-min" 142.163.137.123 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, only Tapology has him listed incorrectly as "Da Un Jung". I think this page should be renamed to reflect the actual spelling of his name and as per all sources and references referring to him as Da Woon Jung. Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Fimbulvetr → Fimbulwinter – More common name in English, i get 73% more results in Google than the Old Norse name (142k vs 246k), also in line with other Wikipedia languages whom have the name translated to the indigenous language. Blockhaj (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gotjawal Forest → Gotjawal – See above talk post. "Gotjawal Forest" suggests that there's a single forest with this title on the island. This is not true; there are a number of gotjawal forests that each have their own names. I just rewrote the entire article to make clear that this is a generic term encompassing multiple forests, and not a title for a single forest. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Nushki District → Noshki District – There seem to be conflicting sources on the name of the district; some sources will use Noshki, renamed from Noshkay, while others will use Nushki. Noshki, from what I can find, seems to be both the more common among reliable sources, and also the correct name. If consensus can be found to move this page, I'll also be renaming related pages Nushki and Nushki shooting, as they'd be renamed for the same reason. SmittenGalaxy|talk!06:40, 11 July 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) – Battle of Geneina → Geneina massacre – Referring to the page as the Battle of Geneina made sense when it was first created, but the June massacres and new details and reports revealing the amount of the destruction and killings shows that this was moreso a coordinated campaign of massacres and attacks by the RSF and allied militias against the Masalit people in Geneina, with just about every source highlighting the genocidal massacres and atrocities over the clashes. Jebiguess (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Very Nice → Very Nice (disambiguation) – Maybe an eager move, but there is only one article within the current mainspace. There are no mentions to "Very Nice" in Borat's article, the only Dermansky novel with an article is a stub, and only one album under the record label has an article, plus the label would likely be "Very Nice Records" if it had an article. Not to say these other things wont eventually be notable, but in the meantime I would say the song is WP:PRIMARYTOPICOrangesclub (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Hurricane Alley → Main Development Region – Per WP:COMMONNAME. On Google Scholar, "Main Development Region" yields over 1,600 results[7] and "MDR hurricane" yields over 4,500 reults;[8] "Hurricane Alley" yields over 500 results,[9], with many not even pertaining to Atlantic hurricanes. Google trends is less clear, "Hurricane Alley" wins over "Main Development Region", but "MDR" bests both by far; "MDR" however can refer to many things. Nevertheless, that "MDR" or "Main Development Region" is overwhelmingly preferred in literature, NHC products, and our own articles—35 items link to Main Development Region, whilst only 5 link to Hurricane Alley excluding redirects and non-mainspace pages—leads me to believe this article should be moved accordingly. ArkHyena (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tonlé Sap → Tonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all. In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹងទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake). So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation. My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is: #Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or, #Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page. The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Roman Palestine (period) → Roman Palestine – This page was originally created over the redirect that currently sits at the base name, but this move was contested, so I have recreated the page with a disambiguated title. Roman Palestine is a period term for the portion of the history of Palestine characterized by Roman rule, from the time of the vassalage of the region after the Romans intervened in local politics until the Arab conquest. There are some slight variations to this, with the Britannica entry setting the start date as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but as other sources show [10][11], 63 BC to 70 AD can also be characterized as "Early Roman Palestine". From the literature both on page and out there and discoverable, and not least the Britannica entry, it seems pretty clear that the period is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. While the current redirect to Syria Palaestina strikes upon perhaps the most obvious constituent subdivision of the Roman period, there was nothing less Roman about the earlier Roman Judaea or the period of local dynastic vassalage still prior to this, or the Byzantine-era Diocese of the East period afterwards. On the contrary, it would be highly unusual not to consider the earlier periods also part of the Roman Palestine period (and to laser focus in on Syria Palaestina). Works such as Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine simply make no sense if you exclude Roman Judaea from the equation. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
(Discuss) – National Rally–The Republicans alliance crisis → 2024 The Republicans (France) crisis – The crisis mostly concerns The Republicans, and has little to do with the National Rally party. They were just there and said "OK" to Ciotti's faction joining their movement. I understand the current name but it's both too long and gives too much spotlight to the RN. The French article is called "2024 crisis in The Republicans party", which is a more accurate description of the situation. I suggest 2024 The Republicans (France) crisis, in line with the name of the article The Republicans (France). Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Alcaeus → Alcaeus (disambiguation) – The Greek lyric poet Alcaeus is the clear primary topic in both likely usage (WP:PT1) and longterm significance (WP:PT2). Likely Usage: There is really no debate that the lyric poet considerably dwarfs the others in page views. He is competing with comparatively niche cultural and mythological personalities; it is telling that all of the other Nine Lyric Poets are named monogamously on Wikipedia (although Simonides of Ceos is not, the name Simonides redirects there regardless). “Alcaeus of Mytilene” is simply not the common name for the lyric poet. Longterm significance: Alcaeus the lyric poet has been canonized in ancient literature, with an oeuvre described as “highly esteemed in the ancient world” ([12]), and an entire lyrical meter named after him (the Alcaic stanza). He is the subject of repeated monographs and studies; the other Alcaeus personages receive no where near this much attention. The previous move request spurred into a tangential analysis of how Alcaeus is presented in classical scholarship. The sources consulted were Brill's New Pauly and the 200 year-old Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology; both do not list the the lyric poet first. Since this is blatant cherrypicking, I’ll have a go myself: the 2014 Oxford Classical Dictionary, more comprehensive and up-to-date than both, lists the lyric poet first. In any case, Wikipedia is not a classical encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia. Other general encyclopedias simply call him "Alcaeus" (see Britannica and Oxford Reference) – Aza24 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Rallying → Rally (motorsport) – "Rallying" remains vague, as it can apply in literally every other type of sport "rally" is a term as well as the stock market. It is not an adequate disambiguation. Britannica calls it "rally" [13] so that's what I went with here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Jutish → Jutlandic – I'm requesting a move to the new article, along with its associated talk page, because while the terms "Jutish" and "Jutlandic" can be synonyms and refer to either anything related to the ancient Germanic tribe called the 'Jutes', anything related to the Jutland peninsula in Denmark, or the 'Jutlandic dialect' spoken in Denmark, the terms "Jute", "Jutish" and "Jutic" normally refer to anything related to the ancient Germanic tribe called the 'Jutes' (according to the entries on Wiktionary, Jute, Jutish and Jutic), while the terms "Jutlandic" and "Jutlandish" normally refer to anything related to the Jutland peninsula in Denmark, or the 'Jutlandic dialect' spoken in Denmark (according to the entries on Wiktionary, Jutlandic and Jutlandish), while the term "Jutlander" normally refers to anyone from the Jutland peninsula in Denmark (according to the entry on Wiktionary). But this definitely warrants further discussion. It seems we have five options here: # Retain the status quo, with the disambiguation page as the primary topic, # Move Jutlandic dialect to Jutlandic and retarget Jutish to Jutes, # Retarget Jutlandic to Jutish, # Move Jutish to Jutlandic and then do either of the following: :: a. retarget Jutish to Jutlandic, :: b. retarget Jutish to Jutes My personal preference is (4b), to move Jutish to Jutlandic and then retarget Jutish to Jutes, so I've styled the RM that way. But editors are also free to suggest whichever option they want in this RM. PK2 (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 12:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sthanakvasi → Sthānakavāsī – This article was living over 10 years under this proposed more appropriate and consistent name, per this change. However, earlier this year this change was reverted in this change. The rationale is unclear, as I was unable to find any documentation on this change. Requesting a discussion and a potential renaming per International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration used in other articles on Jainism. I have changed the label of the Wikidata item accordingly. Solarius (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Queen of Heartstalk 00:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tales of the Jedi (TV series) → Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[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]
(Discuss) – 8 July 2024 Ukraine missile strikes → Kyiv children's hospital airstrike – The children's hospital strike is clearly the most notable and covered of these strikes, and most media outlets are covering that strike exclusively. We can mention the other strikes in the body without obstructing the searchability of the article by using a title very unlikely to be searched by someone who simply saw an article online. Most news articles have the hospital attack as the main headline and have the many other strikes as a sidenote. [20][21][22][23]Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Names for books of Jewish and Christian scripture → Names for Jewish and Christian holy books – This is a worthwhile article, but IMHO its current title is misleading. I expected "Names for books of Jewish and Christian scripture" to list the Jewish and Christian names for books of the Bible. Instead, it lists divisions within the Bible, and the more authoritative of the other Jewish types of holy books. I believe that in both religions "scripture" is only used for the Bible. "Sifrei Kodesh" is a wider category used in Judaism, literally meaning "holy books", although this does have a wider scope than the current content of the nominated article. – FayenaticLondon 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Bensci54 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Adil Shahi dynasty → Sultanate of Bijapur – These articles are about the states themselves, the Sultanates, not the dynasties. We should also standardize whether the Deccan Sultanates are titled by their dynastic or geographical name, and the geographical name makes more sense here both for what these articles are actually about for what a reader would actually search. The other two Deccan Sultanates are already titled for their geographic-based names (Ahmadnagar Sultanate and Bidar Sultanate). The first and third pages to be moved have the "Sultanate" first as that is what seems to be more common per ngram [24][25]Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Pune car crash → 2024 Pune Porsche car crash – The word "Porsche" is a big identifier of this case - the brand of the car crashed is a big assosciation and that is how the case is often talked about in the media. People know it as the "Pune Porsche" case rather than the "2024 Pune car crash". Hence, for this article and this case, I believe the word Porsche should be added. The article thumbnail contains all references, more can be researched. To help my case, the article's thumbnail image is already the Porsche car model. Pharaoh496 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)— Relisting.>>> Extorc.talk 07:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 05:35, 8 July 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)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lunar soil → Lunar regolith – "Lunar regolith" is a much more accurate common term to refer to this specific Lunar surface material, and is generally a more favoured search term than "lunar soil" per google trends. The current title also unintentionally obscures this from pages like regolith, which discuss the concept more broadly that's being applied here. As others pointed out in the last move that was made, it's the more accurate term to use for this topic. I'm also requesting the same move for Martian soil. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Martian soil → Martian regolith – "Martian regolith" is a more accurate term for this particular portion of the Martian surface and is essentially exclusively the one used in the scientific community and literature. The current title also creates some ambiguity with the regolith article not neatly pointing to the same concept by name. I've requested the same sort of move at Lunar soil. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gaza Strip famine → Starvation of Palestinians during the Israel-Hamas war – No source is saying this is a famine. They say near-famine, starvation, or famine-like conditions. Contrary to some claims, there is not one source in this article that declares a famine. The FRC said there wasn't enough evidence to declare a famine, and other sources agreed. But pretty much all reliable sources say there is starvation. In every report, most of the population is in some form of starvation, and sources have gladly accepted this term. Additionally, starvation has been confirmed by pretty much all humanitarian orgs, the UN, ICC, and ICJ. Also, there is no common name. I want to see evidence there's a widely used name. The name doesn't have to be this, but it should revolve around starvation in Gaza. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity".[1] It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.
(Discuss) – Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – I suggest that we rename this article to "Srebrenica genocide" now that the UN has issued its resolution on the matter today, designating July 11 as the International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica Please also check the discussion above. Njamu (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan massacre → Rafah tent camp attack – News sources have called it "attack", "massacre", "strike" and "airstrike". It is not yet clear which is the most WP:COMMONNAME. "Massacre" carries value judgement, and "airstrike" obscures the fact that many of the casualties weren't killed directly by the airstrike, but were burned alive in the resulting fire. "Strike" is very similar to "attack", but "attack" is consistent with other similar events like World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack. I also think "Rafah tent camp" is more recognizable than "Tel al-Sultan" and most sources seem to use "Rafah tent camp" or "Rafah displacement camp".VR(Please ping on reply)18:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]