Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 69 discussions have been relisted.

August 17, 2024

[edit]

August 16, 2024

[edit]
  • (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)[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) – Litening → AN/AAQ-28 Litening – The article's lede immediately identifies that the only system discussed is the AN/AAQ-28. 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/AAQ-28 or including the system name like AN/AAQ-28 Litening. 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/AAQ-28 or AN/AAQ-28 Litening. It is not typical across Wikipedia to place the Manufacturer into the article name, such as Rafael AN/AAQ-28 Litening. I am not able to find any examples like that. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 17:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Child pornography → Child sexual abuse material – While "child pornography" has been generally accepted as the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, the article title policy is clear that that is not the only thing we must consider, and that article titles must also be neutral. I think there is also an argument that the common name has shifted in more recent times, with news outlets, academia, government agencies, and NGOs increasingly shifting to use "CSAM" (and similar terms). As is outlined in Child pornography#Terminology and definitions, there has been a broad shift towards using "child sexual abuse material" (or similar terms) as the more neutral term that avoids the inaccurate description of abusive material as consensual pornography. This usage is supported by experts and academics as well as industry/law enforcement organizations including NCMEC (ex) and the US Department of Justice (ex) in the US, the UK Home Office (ex) in the UK, etc. Per the DOJ: While this phrase still appears in federal law, “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized “child sexual abuse material” as the preferred term. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gembone → agatized dinosaur bone – "Gembone" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, indeed it is so rare-to-nonexistent that (although it is a clever portmanteau of "gemstone" and "bone"), it is not a "recognizable" or "natural" name, the criteria for an article title; indeed, it may be a Wikipedian invention: AFAICT, the term "gembone" is not used in any books (academic or otherwise), and it is mentioned [as an alternate name of "agatized dinosaur bone"] in only one article [reprinted in two places] listed on Google Scholar, which is from 2015, years after this article's 2010 creation. In contrast, "agatized dinosaur bone" is used in dozens of books (mostly scholarly books and governmental- or museum- reports), and half a dozen academic papers, going back decades before Wikipedia existe; it appears to be the common, natural and recognizable title. (Note: as I only considered the relative commonness of the names listed in the article, it is possible that some other name which I did not know to search for is even more common.) -sche (talk) 17:00, 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]

August 15, 2024

[edit]

August 14, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – LGBT → LGBTQ – Google ngrams has now released their newest dataset to 2022, so the time has come since the last discussion last year in June 2023 which already trended in the direction of LGBTQ, but was held of in light of not having enough clarity if LGBTQ had determinstically overtaken LGBT (with the old ngram data having been only up to 2019, where it was clear LGBTQ was on the path, but not over it yet. Well, we now have the latest Ngram data up to 2022 and shows that indeed this trend was confirmed and LGBTQ has squarely overtaken LGBT and furthermore, LGBT is on a now clear downwards trend since 2017. Google Scholar also supports this in the scholarly field with LGBTQ showing 20,000 results in recent years, versus LGBT a 17,800 results. Raladic (talk) 21:23, 14 August 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 "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (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) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 17:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 13, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Reed Richards → Mister Fantastic – "Mister Fantastic" was the original name of the article and where the article was located for about 18 years until the above requested move in 2021 which had minimal participation (2 users supporting, 1 user opposing) and should have been either extended or closed as "no consensus" instead of being closed as "consensus to move". Having this article at "Reed Richards" is inconsistent: * inconsistent with his teammates: Invisible Woman, not "Susan Storm"; Human Torch, not "Johnny Storm"; Thing is currently at "Ben Grimm", but that was only moved there together with that aforementioned 2021 move which again, should have been closed as no consensus * inconsistent with his enemies: Doctor Doom, not "Victor von Doom"; Mole Man, not "Harvey Rupert Elder"; Puppet Master (Marvel Comics), not "Phillip Masters"; Galactus, not "Galan" * inconsistent with his colleagues, most Marvel superheroes: Iron Man, not "Tony Stark"; Captain America, not "Steve Rogers"; Spider-Man, not "Peter Parker"; Doctor Strange, not "Stephen Strange" * inconsistent with most superhero articles, even those outside Marvel: Superman, not "Clark Kent"; Batman, not "Bruce Wayne"; Wonder Woman, not "Diana Prince"; Spawn (character), not "Al Simmons" Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics) says to use the common name: * Google currently returns 2,800,000 hits for "Mister Fantastic" OR "Mr. Fantastic" and 2,280,000 hits for "Reed Richards" (which would also include some hits from real-life people named Reed Richards, not just the comic book character), so Mister Fantastic is the common name. * Collectibles and merchandise almost invariably use "Mister Fantastic" rather than "Reed Richards"; just do a search for Mister Fantastic or Reed Richards toys on Amazon or Google, and you will see they are virtually always labeled "Mister Fantastic" on the box, not "Reed Richards". Naming conventions (comics) allows an exception if a character has multiple well-known codenames like Dick Grayson (who has been Robin, Nightwing, and even Batman at different points in his history), but Reed Richards is not known by any other common codename than Mister Fantastic. In summary, consistency, common name, and Wikipedia naming conventions all support "Mister Fantastic", not "Reed Richards". —Lowellian (reply) 01:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 12, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Wyatt (disambiguation) → Wyatt – This is a misplaced disambiguation page. In 2016 the page "Wyatt" was split into a surname and a given name page, and moved to Wyatt (surname) with comment "Split given name and surname, and seems more appropriate to call this page 'surname' now", leaving "Wyatt" as a redirect to it, and leaving this long-established dab page at its disambiguated title. There are enough placenames and other uses that there seems no obvious primary topic, so this dab page should be at the base title. PamD 09:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 11, 2024

[edit]

August 10, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Qixi Festival → Double Seventh Festival –  : 1. "Double Seventh Festival" would be consistent with the titles of pages on other Chinese festivals, such as Double Ninth Festival and Double Third Festival.  : 2. "Double Seventh Festival" is culturally neutral. This festival is not specifically "Chinese", it is a general East Asian festival (see Tanabata and Chilseok). Additionally, the cultures do not coincide with modern nation-states, "Chinese culture" is not a single culture, and it should not be equated with the Northern Chinese (Mandarin-speaking) culture.  : Of course, there are local traditions and regional differences, but the way it is celebrated among the Hokkien or Cantonese people is arguably as different from the traditions of Northern China as are Japanese and Korean ways of its celebration. Yet we don't have to split the topic even more into a Northern Chinese Qi Xi festival, Cantonese Tsat Tse Festival, Hokkien Chit Niu Ma Festival, etc. The "Double Seventh Festival" would be appropriate to cover all of the regional versions of this festival. While we are at it, Zhinü should also be moved to Weaver Girl, and Niulang to Cowherd (Chinese mythology). These characters (especially the weaver girl) also have different names even in Chinese characters, compare 織女 (Mandarin Zhīnǚ and Korean Jiknyeo), 七娘媽 (Hokkien Chhit-niû-má), 織姫 (Japanese Orihime), 七姐 (Cantonese Cat1 ze2). Currently, Orihime and Hikoboshi refer to those articles, and there are no articles on Jiknyeo and Gyeonwu. That would also be consistent with the article The Cowherd and the Weaver Girl, which uses translated English names. QuestionableAnswers (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dyfed–Powys Police → Dyfed-Powys Police – MOS:ENBETWEEN as above, the MOS:DASH reason given for the previous move doesn't apply here. MOS:ENBETWEEN states:

    Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. *Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is its capital, and this name distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea *Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities *John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

    Dyfed-Powys Police is a single police entity named after the two areas it covers, not an article with a descriptive title on the policing relationship of Powys and of Dyfed. Additionally the force themselves use a hyphen. DankJae 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Post-credits scene → Credits scene – The current title of the article is misleading, because the term post-credits scene is just a variant of a credits scene. There's also a term mid-credits scene, which is also a variant, except that it's shown between the credits. So, it's better if we have the title change to simply "Credits scene" to refer to both mid and post-credist scenes. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – 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 [31], 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]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty → Pratihara dynasty – "Pratihara dynasty" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME as shown by this graph. This compare the usages of both "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" to "Pratihara" + "Pratiharas" after excluding the usages of "Gurjara-Pratihara" + "Gurjara-Pratiharas" from the graph of "Pratiharas". This graph clearly shows the prevalence of simply "Pratihara(s)" over "Gurjara-Pratihara(s)" by a very large margin, i.e, more than 4 times. In my course of editing for Wikipedia, I've seen that scholars usually use simply "Pratihara" more than "Gurajara-Pratihara". It also seems like this would be a more WP:neutral point of view name. PadFoot (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – World Rowing Federation → World Rowing – I believe the COMMONNAME is World Rowing, which is what they consistently use fro themselves. There are examples out there of using World Rowing Federation but I think they're rare. World Rowing is also more CONCISE. For what it's worth, World Rowing Federation is not the official name. According to their Bylaws, the official name is still FISA, but "World Rowing is the designation used operationally by FISA." In searching for references online it's tricky to separate references to World Rowing from the World Rowing Championships, but here are some recent examples: [34] [35] [36] JFHutson (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:29, 7 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) – Register (sociolinguistics) → Socio-linguistic register – Parenthetical disambiguation, as used today, is kind of a last resort. Sociolinguistic is a bit squished for new readers, so I prefer a hyphen for first use, including in the title and lead sentence. I want the title to be easily parsed by readers who have not heard the term "Sociolinguistic" before, or even the prefix "Socio-". Simply Linguistic does not disambiguate enough: see Register (disambiguation)#Linguistics. Register as a base name does not meet my understanding of WP:COMMONNAME; I understand it as requiring the low-context variant (i.e. not the term used in the middle sections of papers in the field). As long as the full term is used in the titles of some papers in the field, I believe the full term should be considered to meet WP:COMMONNAME. And, well... this full name is used in the bodies of some papers, at least. And "linguistic register" is used in plenty of paper titles, but we've ruled that out for other reasons. My understanding of WP:COMMONNAME seems to be borne out by success in move discussions I started: from "Inflation (cosmology)" to "Cosmic inflation"; from "Transformation (genetics)" to "Genetic transformation". But I think it's time for me to start a discussion on the MOS talk page itself about this "low context vs high context" thing, since it may exist only in my mind at the moment, or as a non-obvious implication of other core CRITERIA for article titles. All that said, I believe Socio-linguistic register is the best title for this article. The hyphen or entire prefix can and should be dropped for most subsequent uses within the article. Jruderman (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 15:16, 28 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) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 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) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:33, 23 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]

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Kirby, Paul (15 August 2024). "First case of more contagious mpox found outside Africa". BBC. Retrieved 15 August 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1240754039#Elapsed_listings"