Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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 discussion (especially no recent 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 such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page 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: ..."

  • 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 page title|reason=reason for 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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "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|NewName|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 NewName 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 22 April 2023" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

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

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| 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.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 22 April 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 22 April 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 22 April 2023

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 22 April 2023

– why Example (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 22 April 2023

– why Example (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 40 discussions have been relisted.

April 22, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Communist rebellion in the Philippines → New People's Army conflict – Given that other past and present communist conflicts are now covered at Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines, in light of previous discussions, and in an effort to avoid confusion due to an overbroad article title, I propose that this article be moved to New People's Army conflict.

    Given that material about other communist conflicts (the defunct Hukbalahap, CPLA, and ABB conflicts as well as the active MLPP and RWP conflicts) has been moved to Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines, the article is now primarily about the conflict between the New People's Army (NPA) of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), which also involves its political wing, the National Democratic Front (NDF). Since there have been objections to the use of the long acronym "CPP-NPA-NDF", and it is the NPA which is the direct participant in the conflict, "New People's Army conflict" would be a viable accurate title.

    On a last note, the term "conflict" has been proposed here because it seems to have been recognized, in previous discussions, as the most neutral descriptor. The use of "conflict" also neatly parallels the other major conflict in contemporary Philippine history, which is the Moro conflict. If there are any of objections to conflict, I suppose "New People's Army rebellion" is a viable alternate name, although some proposals to change it have been put forward in the past, and it is my belief that "conflict" will finally lead to a stable article title. Thank you. Looking forward to everyone's feedback, and a final, stable, NPOV article title. Chieharumachi (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Valdivian temperate rain forest → Valdivian temperate forests – This article is about a terrestrial ecoregion. The primary sources agree that the ecoregion is named Valdivian temperate forests – One Earth, Encyclopedia of Life, DOPA Explorer, and WWF. The practice at the Ecoregions WikiProject is to use the ecoregion names used by the primary sources. The current article name, from an undiscussed move, doesn't jibe with those sources. There are temperate rainforests in the ecoregion and they are discussed in the article, but it includes other temperate forest types as well, so the name used by the sources is the more appropriate one for this article. Tom Radulovich (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 21, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Kunst-Wet/Arts-Loi metro station → Arts-Loi metro station – I am starting a move request to retitle this article to its French name, and as such bring it in line with all the other stations of the Brussels Metro, as per the Brussels naming convention established back in 2007 on WP:BELG (see Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3). In short, the consensus back then in Brussels articles was to use only a single name without any separators (e.g. "/") for clarity, choosing either the French or Dutch alternative (or an English form when existant) depending on the most common usage. Although I am a big defender of Brussels' bilingual status, as far as English Wikipedia is concerned, this role nearly always falls on the French form (that language being by far the most commonly spoken one in the region). I have already manually changed the other stations' names (when required) to meet the above-mentioned criteria. However, this particular article and Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station are blocked from further moves, leading to both articles' bilingual names remaining as somewhat of an anomaly. I also started a move request on that other article's talk page. Jason Lagos (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maalbeek/Maelbeek metro station → Maelbeek metro station – I am starting a move request to retitle this article to its French name, and as such bring it in line with all the other stations of the Brussels Metro, as per the Brussels naming convention established back in 2007 on WP:BELG (see Talk:Brussels-Capital Region/NamingArchive3). In short, the consensus back then in Brussels articles was to use only a single name without any separators (e.g. "/") for clarity, choosing either the French or Dutch alternative (or an English form when existant) depending on the most common usage. Although I am a big defender of Brussels' bilingual status, as far as English Wikipedia is concerned, this role nearly always falls on the French form (that language being by far the most commonly spoken one in the region). I have already manually changed the other stations' names (when required) to meet the above-mentioned criteria. However, this particular article and Kunst-Wet/Arts-Loi metro station are blocked from further moves, leading to both articles' bilingual names remaining as somewhat of an anomaly. I also started a move request on that other article's talk page. Jason Lagos (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Aldol reaction → Aldol addition – Aldol reaction (singular) refers to Aldol additions in English. While in other languages its referring to the general set of reactions. So for chemists who are fluent in English but it's not their first language (which is fairly common within Wikipedia chemistry) its caused some editing mistakes. The majority of the page is about aldol addition, but there were some sections about the overall pair of reaction which have since been moved to Aldol reactions. With only two mentions of aldol condensations kept where it explained how certain reaction conditions are necessary for Aldol additions (to avoid condensation). See above for more information Talk:Aldol reaction#Mistake in translation (Aldol reaction vs. reactions) LoomCreek (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mana → Mana (Oceanian culture) – I'm not convinced that the average English reader recognizes this term as synonymous with this topic to the extent required by the disambiguation guidelines. This seems to be evidenced by the existence and usage of two hatnotes, both of which are in fact on top of the list of the most clicked links in the article at the WikiNav clickstream data for Mana, which is indicative of a problem with navigation. In March 2023 data, of the 17.1k incoming views, there were 839 outgoing views to Mana (disambiguation), 531 outgoing views to Manna and then 389 to Orenda which is an italicized term in the lead section, etc. 1370 out of ~17000 is ~8%, which isn't nominally a lot per se, but it has previously been indicative of navigation issues. This is because we can't really be sure that this statistic translates into ~92% readers actually ending up in the right place, as some readers might find it interesting to read about something that they weren't looking for, which is fine, but some might just give up and not read much more, which is not.
    Mass views statistics for all Mana topics indicates that there's a wide smattering of largely homonymous topics that have larger or comparable readership. Some were already mentioned, also in the previous MR shown above, and apparently there's also a Japanese musician who became prominent.
    I also tried to verify what happens in other similar sources of information. At a Google Books search for Mana and while this topic is the most common one, there's a fair bit of other stuff in there in the first couple of pages as well. At e.g. Britannica when one searches for 'mana', it prominently displays their article about this concept, but doesn't short-circuit readers, and instead shows a list in which the next item is the homonymous South American geography topic. At encyclopedia.com, they also show a list of topics when searching for the term, and happen to show Mana-Zucca and Maná before this concept.
    I think we should give full disambiguation a try and see how it affects reader behavior, obviously keeping the link to this topic on top, collate the data over a period of a couple of months (until the various search engine patterns settle, from previous experience it takes a while), and then proceed accordingly based on that.
    Obviously, "Oceanian culture" is just one very generic possible disambiguation marker, please feel free to propose a better alternative. --Joy (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Yi Ik (born 1681) → Yi Ik – Currently, the page Yi Ik is a disambiguation page that contains only one blue-linked article. There is no need for a disambiguation page when there is only one topic on the wiki. The disambiguation page was created in 2006, yet there still is no articles on the English wiki for the other men named Yi Ik with red-links. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 20, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Gangnam (Seoul) → Gangnam – Per sources below, "Gangnam" most commonly is used to refer to the cultural region, while "Gangnam-gu"/"Gangnam District" is used to refer to the specific administrative district. Kangnam County, Kangnam Mountains, and Kangnam (singer) all have natural disambiguation through their MR-spelling (and are unambiguously not the primary topic). As well, the distinction of "District" (and the redirect Gangnam-gu) provides natural disambiguation for Gangnam District. * "It was not until I became more familiar with Seoul that I realized that 'Kangnam' had two broader connotations. The broadest encompasses all the districts south of the Han. A slightly more restrictive but more common use of the term referred to multiple, recently developed ku south of the Han, not just Kangnam-gu, which were associated with modern high-rise apartment complexes and the new middle class." (Lett 1998, p. 102) * "While Gangnam can be defined in different ways–from the narrowest, limited to just the administrative district of Gangnam-gu itself, to the broadest, which would encompass the whole area south of the Han River – I follow the conventional and common definition of Gangnam as an area composed of the three administrative units of Gangnam-gu, Seocho-gu, and Songpa-gu." (Yang 2018, p. 3408) It's also worth noting that the disambiguation page predates the Gangnam (Seoul) article by 17 years. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Alternative Faso → Le Faso Autrement – "Faso Alternative" is a decidedly wrong translation, the most faithful translation of the original name would be "Faso Otherwise". However the first translation is used from a handful of sources (which may have been influenced by Wikipedia) and the second translation is attested by a few sources, so in cases like this it is better to use the uncotroversial original name. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Green-light → Greenlight – This article was created with the correct title "Greenlight" on 12 September 2004. In violation of MOS:RETAIN, User:Eric improperly moved this article to "Green-light" in 2010. The term "greenlight" (as a verb) is most commonly used in American English and has not been hyphenated in formal written America*n English for at least four decades. I already raised this issue on the talk page in 2019 and no one has defended User:Eric's clear violation of MOS:RETAIN. It's time to move this article back to the correct title. Coolcaesar (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kirsty Howat-Thomson → Kirsty Howat – Unsure where the 'Thomson' comes from or why it is included in the page title. Even if it is her legal name - and I don't know if it is - it isn't mentioned in the article text or any of the cited sources, and she is only listed as Howat by Rangers, the SFA, Soccerway, etc., and on her own social media. Jellyman (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Astana Economic Forum → Astana International Forum – The Astana Economic Forum has gone through two name changes since its inception and is now called the Astana International Forum. The name change can be seen here from an announcement by the government of Kazakhstan: Kazakhstan launches new Astana International Forum to address key global challenges (www.gov.kz) FM23PA (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 19, 2023

  • (Discuss) – New Latin → Neo-Latin – I have yet to find an article, book or academic programme about Neo-Latin that uses the term "New Latin" as is used here. Although dictionaries have the term, it does not seem to be in common use outside of Wikipedia. All the major recent studies use the term Neo-Latin, likewise all of the courses and programmes in Universities on the topic. A quick look at the sources at the foot of the main page show fourteen books using the term Neo-Latin, and none using "New Latin", for example. Wikipedia should reflect external consensus in naming, rather than following its own path. Jim Killock (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Adventures of Pussycat → Pussycat (comics) – The comic strip's name (and the name of the protagonist) is "Pussycat", which ran from 1965 to 1972 or 1980 or whatever, depending on how you count. "The Adventures of Pussycat" is a publication featuring the strip from 1968 (and even that is questionable BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC). So unless we're going to have separate pages on the strip/character and the single magazine it makes more sense to have the article sited at the more flexible redirect rather than here. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sujatha baliga → Sujatha Baliga – Per standard English grammar and following sources, e.g. NY Times 1 & 2, UPI. I don't think that the use of the lowercase form, while present in some sources, meets the standard at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Personal names of "regular and established use in reliable independent sources". Also, it's quite confusing to present a proper noun in lowercase, and would argue against this guideline section under the general, broader MoS guideline to "write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language" (second paragraph of main MoS page). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 → Mass Effect 3 ending controversy – This article reads as a list of grievances about a game that is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. The ending issue is indisputably notable, but regarding the others: Day-One DLC is a standard practice, not a controversy, and any negative reception about that can be discussed on the DLC page. Tali is already mentioned in her own article. It doesn't need to be said that the idea of gay content being controversial is WP:FRINGE to be given an entire section. Shepard's redesign was largely embraced and only drew criticism from a small group. And a game journalist having a cameo as a journalist journalist is somehow horrific? I would argue the article be refocused solely on the ending. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – N'Ko script → N'Ko alphabet – See WP:NCWS#Alphabets, requiring "language-specific"; consensus at WT:NCWS was that this should cover one or more languages; N'Ko was designed specifically for a closely related group of languages (Manding languages). The people themselves, and academics, call it an alphabet: 1. Its readers and writers celebrate "N'Ko Alphabet Day", see cites in the article or google the quoted term. 2. Its creator Solomana Kanté's grave is marked 'inventor of the N'Ko alphabet' (not 'script'); see photo of that in the article. Other refs from the article: 3. Oyler, Dianne White (1997). "The N'ko Alphabet as a Vehicle of Indigenist Historiography". 4. Sogoba, Mia (2018). "N'Ko Alphabet: a West African Script". 5. Doumbouya, Mamady (2012). "Illustrated English/N'Ko Alphabet."... etc. – •Raven  .talk 10:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – SGR 0525−66 → SGR 0526−66 – There is not a soft gamma repeater named SGR 0525-66.The first SGR that was discovered was the SGR 0526-56 and if you look at the Right ascension witch the SGR is named after you see that the coordinates are 5 hours and 26 minutes and not 25 minutes. Dimitris Gkour (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Göktürks → Türks – The name Göktürk is the Oghuz (Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Turkish) version for their original name Türk. The recorded names for them in each neighbouring entity was referencing to as Türk, sources such as Chinese, Sogdian, Tibetan etc. called them "Trukut", "Drugu" etc. Also in their own inscriptions, Göktürks mentioned "Kök-Türk" (Gök-Türk) only once in the third line of Kul Tigin Inscriptions' east side, other than this one and only mention, they invariably referred to themselves as "Türk". Even the first word gök was a misspelling. The popular naming "Göktürk" was either a misreading/misspelling of the Turkic word "kök" or Old Turkic "köök" (meaning as noun "sky, heaven, blue" [as opposing to "tengïr" and "tengïz", all meaning "the blue (sky or sea)"] and as adjective "heavenly, ethereal, spheric, celestial") or the Oghuz Turkic version for the word which is “gök” with the same meaning 'sky' or 'blue'. You can access all the information given above in the article itself, particularly in the etymology section of the article Göktürk. 𐰴𐰺𐰀:𐰆𐰍𐰺 · Karakylchyg 12:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muscle tissue → Muscle – There is a need for its own page. A previous page Muscle was merged and redirected to Skeletal muscle but a more general umbrella page is needed, and the content of this page would easily accommodate this. Iztwoz (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 18, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Vítor Oliveira (footballer, born 2000) → Vitinha (footballer, born March 2000) – Vítor Oliveira's (Marseille) WP:COMMONNAME has recently become Vitinha. Sources now refer to him as Vitinha, it's what it says on the back of his shirt, etc, although that wasn't the case before. Now it is the case, so my first point is that moving him to Vitinha is correct because of COMMONNAME. For the other Vitinha (PSG), who is more well known, it's well established that he goes by Vitinha. However, keeping the article name at the current name is bad, because it creates ambiguity with the other Vitinha, who is also born in 2000. People are highly likely to know both players under the name Vitinha, especially those unfamiliar with Portuguese football, so moving to a month distinction is the way to go. This is of course assuming that Vitinha is the established COMMONNAME for Vítor Oliveira, which I believe it to be. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 17, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Monochrome painting → Monochrome (visual arts) – Removing the arguably restrictive category of "painting" from the page title will naturally incorporate more mediums and movements, several of which are already discussed in the article (Minimalism is one such example). It will also follow terminology adapted by major cultural institutions including the Tate Modern and the Museum of Modern Art. I could provide further evidence, though I really do not see this as a particularly controversial move and did not want to make the decision myself so as to allow for community input. Ppt91talk 23:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Macedonian Muslims → Torbesh – The Torbesh are a Slavic-speaking Muslim community in the Republic of North Macedonia. The Torbesh are a distinct group which speaks one of the Slavic dialects of Macedonia. The title Macedonian Muslims is based on the assumption that the Torbesh identify themselves as Macedonians in terms of ethnicity and/or national identity, but most don't do so and quite tellingly only half of ethnic Macedonians would consider them to be Macedonians (Damjanovski 2021). In the 2021 census, most Torbesh didn't declare themselves as ethnic Macedonians who follow Islam but either registered themselves in the category "Other" or depending on the municipality as Turks or Albanians. The article should have the title Torbesh which is the most accepted name used in bibliography to refer to them as it reflects their endonym without any reference to particular competing national identities which a majority of them have chosen to not adopt. *Damjanovski, Ivan (2021) Old Communities and New Controversies: the community of Macedonian-speaking Muslims between ethnicity and religion, Political Thought 62: The Macedonian speaking Muslims (usually referred to as Torbesh) are a specific ethno-confessional group that predominantly lives in North Macedonia, as well as in some geographical regions in Albania and Kosovo. Also there is a big number of ethnonyms ascribed to the Macedonian speaking Muslims. Amongst others, most notable ethnonyms that are used in different regional contexts in Macedona are: Nashintsi, Pomaks, Apovci, Poturi and Turks. However the most widespread ethnonym (which is also accepted in the academic and political circles) is Torbesh, although the term has polarizing effects on some parts of the Macedonian speaking Muslim community. Maleschreiber (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Mihailo Obrenović → Mihailo Obrenović, Prince of Serbia – The main reason motivating this proposed move is establishing a consistency in article titles that cover ruling Princes of Serbia. A few weeks ago, this page and Miloš Obrenović, Prince of Serbia were the only pages that did not conform to this format. The page for Miloš Obrenović was recently moved to the current format after a proposed move discussion and the resulting article name was one that the editors either explicitly agreed on, were willing to accept or addressed their opposing thoughts. One editor explicitly proposed addressing this page should the page for Miloš Obrenović be moved the way it was ultimately agreed upon. I'd like to note that ruling Princes of Monaco, an existing principality, follow this format in page titles. Killuminator (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Noname (rapper) → Noname – Target currently redirects to No Name (a dab page) but the only other entry on that page without a space is a pen name of Luis Senarens. Since there's not even a redirect for that pen name at current, and even then it's not the title of that writer's page, I think it would make sense to call this primary topic and take off "(rapper)". Could also add a hatnote here linking to Senarens. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Plac Zbawiciela → Saviour Square – "Saviour Square" is an English name of this place, as opposed to "Plac Zbawiciela" which is Polish name. All other places of this sort in the city (and in general) have their Wikipedia articles' names with thier English names. Additionally, even if keeping Polish name, word "Place" is usually be replaced with English "Square" instead in articles names on English Wikipedia, which would make it "Zbawiciela Square" instead anyway. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Aiden English → Matthew Rehwoldt – This page needs to be moved under his real name. We have a bad tendency around here to keep people under their WWE names even long after they moved on to other companies and use different names. The WP:Common Name theory really doesn't apply here, yet some editors cling to it like a teddy bear. This move has to be made, so you can count me in as a Support right off he bat. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Proslavery → Proslavery thought – I know a lot of editors object to the title "proslavery" because it is generally viewed as an adjective, and we generally prefer nouns to adjectives as article titles. Yes, there is some usage of it as a noun, and even a few dictionaries which include it as a noun, but the adjectival usage predominates. If you look at the academic literature, "proslavery" is the predominant term for this (sometimes hyphenated, especially in older sources, but nowadays more often not); while many think it is something specific to the antebellum US, academic research on the opposition to slavery abolition in the UK uses the term "proslavery" there as well. But, if you look at all that research, the vast majority of it uses "proslavery" as an adjective: Proslavery Britain, Proslavery thought, Proslavery Christianity, Proslavery Ideology, proslavery liberalism, Proslavery rhetoric, Proslavery Foreign Policy, The Pro-Slavery Argument; a few academic researchers do use it as a noun, but the impression I formed in my (far from exhaustive) dive into the literature, is that the noun usage is occasional and vastly outweighed by the adjective. In an attempt to satisfy those editors who dislike the current title, I am proposing Proslavery thought. That's what the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation calls its article on the topic, and the same phrase is used in the titles of two academic works on it: Faust, Drew Gilpin, ed. The ideology of slavery: Proslavery thought in the antebellum South, 1830–1860 (LSU Press, 1981); Brophy, Alfred L. University, court, and slave: Pro-slavery thought in southern colleges and courts and the coming of civil war (Oxford University Press, 2016). While all three of those sources are focused on the antebellum US, proslavery thought is sufficiently broad to encompass the UK proslavery movement as well (see Paula Dumas' book Proslavery Britain). Another option would be proslavery movement. However, I think proslavery thought is superior because: (a) there wasn't a single proslavery movement, so it would really have to be proslavery movements–there was the US one, there was the UK one – and while they borrowed ideas from each other, they were distinct; there were also proslavery movements in other countries which had legal slavery, for example Brazil, although it is much harder to find English language sources on that; (b) there is a long history of proslavery thought in Western culture going back to ancient times, and all those proslavery movements drew on that thought for inspiration – which I think means it makes more sense to make the article scope be the history of proslavery thought overall (incorporating the various proslavery movements within it), rather than just limiting it to those times in history when proslavery became an organised political movement. All that said, I have no objection to leaving the title as-is too. I am just proposing this in the spirit of compromise. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 16, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Kevington → Kevington, Victoria – Is the pop 43 place really primary? Though it gets more views most Google and Books results are for the London one but the 1st is probably due to my location. Images is mixed though. This one could be named after the London one suggesting it has more long-term significance. Suggest creating a DAB at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Atique Ahmed → Atiq Ahmad – A simple look at the sources and a further look into google trends suggests that Atiq is much more common than Atique. Ahmad vs Ahmed is a little debatable but Google trends suggests that Ahmad is a little more common. >>> Extorc.talk 05:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – József Cserny (commander) → József Cserny – The name redirects to the Lenin Boys. there is already a page for József Cserny, and the actual name redirects to the Lenin Boys. It's better to remove the redirect so the actual page could just be called József Cserny instead of "József Cserny (commander)" Rahammz (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 15, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Dimash Kudaibergen → Dimash Qudaibergen – The Kazakh language has two letters that correspond to the English 'k' sound - Қ, and К. The canonical transliteration of Қ is now the letter Q in Latin script for English language text. Qudaibergen's English transliteration should therefore be initial Q rather than the now deprecated K. Dimash Qudaibergen also now uses the Q transliteration on all official announcements and product information. It seems to me that the article title should be changed to reflect this. Ratpie (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Li Rui (politician) → Li Rui – There are several notable Chinese individuals named Li Rui, but the politician appears to be the primary topic. His page has consistently gotten an order of magnitude more pageviews than the others and appears to also have orders of magnitude more Google results, though obviously interpretation is tricker there. We also have a far more detailed article on the politician than on the other Li Ruis, several of which seem unlikely to ever progress beyond stubs. The politician is far more broadly covered in academic work and published books, from what I can find. We should move the politician's article to simply be titled 'Li Rui' and rename the current 'Li Rui' page to make it a clear disambiguation page per usual practice. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. MaterialWorks (contribs) 13:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – CPKC Railway → ? – Nowhere on the company website does it call itself "CPKC Railway." It's legal name is "Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited" but everywhere online the company is simply calling itself "CPKC." RickyCourtney (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Kaddare script → Kaddare alphabet – Undo the revert of a reversion, to status quo ante of 13 Feb 2019, i.e. this is BRRD. See:
    • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
    • "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
    • WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
    • Note that Kaddare is "language-specific" to the Somali language.
    • See also what Omniglot calls it. – •Raven  .talk 03:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zaghawa script → Zaghawa alphabet – Undoing revert of reversion to restore original title; i.e. this is BRRD. See:
    • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
    • "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
    • WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
    • Note that the Zaghawa character/letter-set is "language-specific" to the Zaghawa language.
    • See also what Omniglot calls it. – •Raven  .talk 03:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Todhri script → Todhri alphabet – Undoing move of 23 January 2021 to restore original title. See:
    • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
    • "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
    • WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
    • Note that Todhri is "language-specific" to the Albanian language.
    • See also what Omniglot calls it. – •Raven  .talk 02:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vithkuqi script → Vithkuqi alphabet – Undoing the reversion of a reversion (this is now BRR D). See: • Clair, Kate; Busic-Snyder, Cynthia (2012-06-20). "Key Concepts". A Typographic Workbook: A Primer to History, Techniques, and Artistry. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 347. ISBN 9781118399880. alphabet: a set of visual characters or letters in an order fixed by custom. The individual characters represent the sounds of a spoken language. ... alphabets (called alphabets) which consist of separate vowels and consonants....
    • "alphabet". Merriam-Webster [online]. 1.a. a set of letters or other characters with which one or more languages are written especially if arranged in a customary order
    • WP:NCWS#Alphabets: "'Alphabet' is used for language-specific adaptations of a segmental script, usually with a defined sorting order and sometimes with not all of the letters, or with additional letters:" [followed by list of examples].
    • Note that Vithkuqi is "language-specific" to the Albanian language.
    • See also what Omniglot calls it. – •Raven  .talk 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia → Niccolò Tartaglia – I don't see any support in the article for the name "Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia". Presumably his legal name (to the extent there was such a thing) was always Niccolò Fontana. The name he's most known by, Tartaglia, is technically a nickname. Images in the article suggest that he published as Nicolaus Tartaglia and Nicolo Tartaglia, with no "Fontana" in either. It seems a bit OR-ish to combine them into the tripartite name in the current title, and I don't believe I've ever seen his name in that form elsewhere.
    To be honest, my real preference would be to move to just Tartaglia, which is the WP:COMMONNAME, if he passes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which I think it's likely he does. However that would take more legwork to check up on. Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Plato's Academy mosaic → ? – The name is not used in scholarly literature as it points to a rather disputable interpretation. There is a wide range of alternatives with a significant amount of writing supporting each and rejecting the rest. Most authors call it the Philosophers' mosaic ,Mosaique des philosophes, Phisophenmosaik. There is also a second mosaic which is generally seen to be a variant on the same topic, so they are frequently discussed together and distinguished by referring to the place where they were found or are presently, thus mentions of Naples, Sarsina, villa Albani, Torre Annunziata etc. Recent work mentioned in the article (Massa-Pairault, Sedley) contains enough references to older mentions. The text of the article should be thoroughly reworked. 79.100.200.28 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Square Enix Europe → Eidos Interactive – This article's topic are video game publishers Domark and Eidos Interactive. Square Enix effectively absorbed Eidos into its group in 2009, which means it is no longer a publisher in the original sense. (Square Enix Limited is as Square Enix America not a separate publishing entity) A ship of Theseus problem occurs as WP is not merely a legal heritage database, as argued by Axem Titanium above. Later development should be merged into the main Square Enix group article as appropriate. IgelRM (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Penn FC → Harrisburg City Islanders – @GiantSnowman, 162 etc., Jay eyem, and IagoQnsi: Now that the club is defunct, the article should be titled with the team's most recognizable name with respect to history. The club was officially known as the City Islanders for 14 seasons between 2004 and 2017. The team reached the finals three times and won one league championship. Conversely, Penn FC played a single unremarkable season in 2018. Following the article titling policy, the "recognizability" critera points strongly in favour of the proposed title. BLAIXX 14:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Afghan Premier League → Afghanistan Champions League – This is the name of country's domestic championship since 2021. The question is if that league is (1) a continuation of the Afghan Premier League, in which case this article should be renamed, or (2) a different competition, in which case a new article should be created. * RSSSF: The list of champions says that the Afghan Premier League was "discontinued after 2020", and then goes ahead with listing the winners of the subsequent Afghanistan Champions League. * Afghan Premier League: Its dedicated website hasn't published new materials since 2019. In its accounts in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, the content from after 2020, if any, seems to pertain to the national teams instead. * National FA: Its website doesn't contain a section on the domestic championship but only links to that stale Premier League website. Its Instagram page has a lot more stuff, and one can see that while in 2020 a team was crowned as the champion of the "Afghan Premier League", in 2022 there was a winner of the "Afghanistan Champions League", with the photo caption saying this was the "second season" of the league (use automated translators if your Dari skills are lacking). There doesn't seem to be an explicit announcement of the change, though. All this evidence seems to be in favour of creating a new page, but input is welcome. I'm leaving a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan. --Theurgist (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muslim conquest of Spain → Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula – I believe the option of using "Iberian Peninsula" at the end of the title has not been sufficiently discussed. I believe this is the most appropriate title and my arguments are based on three points. # "Spain" fails WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE due to the exclusion of Portugal and other regions and does not follow the common practice in Wikipedia (see similar articles: List of the Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula, Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, Timeline of Germanic kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula, Mercenaries of the ancient Iberian Peninsula). # "Spain" is not the name used for the peninsula at those times (it is anachronistic) and it does not matter if it was. Historical forms such as Spania would be closer to the concept defined by the modern English name of "Hispania", identical to the Latin original and for which we have an article, defining the former Roman province(s) actually covering the whole peninsula, vs. the modern country covered by the word "Spain" which does not treat the whole of the peninsula while also including regions outside of it. # "Spain" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Both the current and proposed being descriptive names, the common name argument has more nuances than if we were discussing proper names. Further, in the last RM, some users stuck to the notion that Spain is simply an appropriate way of naming the whole peninsula, which I do not believe should have gone assumed without discussion as it did. Many of the results that showed up were immediately interpreted as employing Spain for the whole of the peninsula, but there is no proof of this. If I search "Muslim conquest of Spain" in Google Scholar, there is a total of 565 results. I will discuss the very first academic paper there I have free access to. It is Jews, Visigoths, and the Muslim Conquest of Spain. Already on the first page we see One of the most persistent myths of modern historiography asserts that the Jewish communities of the Visigothic Kingdom collaborated with the Arab and Berber invaders of the Iberian Peninsula in the year 711. The author has already made clear he is distinguishing between "Spain" and "Iberian Peninsula" in this context. This paper is about Spain, not Iberia. Also on the first page we see He is currently working on his Ph.D. dissertation regarding the conquest and resettlement of Majorca in Barcelona, Spain. The geographical location of the scholar also can influence the title they choose to use. Being in Spain or at least being connected to it, this author published a work in Spanish history in a Spanish context, and not one on Iberian history in general.  ::There is zero evidence to believe all academic papers employing "Muslim conquest of Spain" are deliberately choosing to refer to the peninsula as Spain rather than Iberia. That is in fact a very wild assumption to make, but it is one users supporting the current title decided to adopt. This issue is far more complex and nuanced and the burden on proving that indeed authors are making use of Spain for the whole of the peninsula falls on those who supported the last move and will oppose this one, not on me or in supporters of this move. I will lastly state that forms using Iberia or Iberian Peninsula have 497 results in Google Scholar [27], actually pretty close to the 565 Spain has. In conclusion. Many of the arguments for using "Spain" are flawed in many ways are require further consideration. That it is a common name is not a proven fact. Forms using Iberia are also very common and are concise and precise, and not anachronistic. This is why I believe they are a better title. And just in case, to avoid an Iberian Peninsula vs. Iberia debate, the article on the peninsula is called Iberian Peninsula and as I understood it, the move to "Umayyad conquest of Hispania" was carried out in the first place in 2007 because editors thought using "Iberia" could cause problems due to Georgia, also attacked by Muslim invading forces, was historically called Iberia as well [28]. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed requests

See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
10:18, Saturday, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1149529436"