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. 62 discussions have been relisted.

September 25, 2024

[edit]

September 24, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Quonset Hut Studio → Bradley Studios – The studio that came to be known as the "Quonset hut studio" was the second of two studios (Studio B) at Bradley Studios. Bradley Studios was later purchased by Columbia Studios, who retained the "Quonset hut studio" as Columbia Studio B, but built a new Columbia Studio A as part of the Music Row complex. While Studio B has generally been known as the "Quonset hut studio", it's only part of the story of that recording facility, and even the historical marker at the site is about Bradley Studios and not only the "Quonset hut studio". Now that the article has been expanded to encompass Bradley Studios and later Columbia Studios, I think the article would more appropriately be named Bradley Studios, with a Redirect page for the "Quonset hut studio". synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Middleton F.C. (1890) → Middleton F.C. – The original Middleton F.C. page was for a prominent football club from the 1890s. A user tried to delete the page (without warning) so that they could create a new page for a non-league club of no prominence. That having failed, they simply deleted all the text for the 1890 club, which got reverted; and then moved the 1890 club page to a new page, meaning the links to it were duly ruined. Now the "new" Middleton club has changed its name so these underhand shenanigans were all moot. Am proposing we put the 1890 club back to where it was created as there are no links to the new club - notably the person who made all these changes did so without contacting the page creator (me) once... In Vitrio (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – LGBT pride → LGBTQ pride – The page was moved from Gay pride to LGBT pride a few years ago in recognition that this article is about Pride of the community, not just exclusively the Gay community, despite the term Gay pride still being higher in use than LGBT pride was at the time, so the consensus for the article was explicitly to deviate from exclusively applying WP:COMMONNAME as a compound word in the move in 2022 in recognition that the true common name nowadays is just Pride without any qualifiers. Now as a followup some years later, I propose we move it to LGBTQ pride in recognition of the community continuing to evolve and explicitly adding the Q as was also recently done in the main article LGBTQ (RM discussion) in recognition of LGBTQ replacing just LGBT. The person that contested the bold move argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied, but as I pointed out, this article is already not named in line with strict common name of the combined term, but in recognition of the community as the true common name today is simply "Pride" (in line with the sibling articles Pride Month and Pride parade, which doesn't need a qualifier, so no suffix or prefix is needed to disambiguate) without any qualifiers, but since the article requires a qualifier to differentiate it from just the English word Pride, it was then decided to add LGBT for it, which was the common name for the community at large at the time, consistent with the parent article, which was also LGBT at the time and instead of using Pride (LGBT) it was decided to use LGBT Pride per WP:NATURAL to use a prefix, not a suffix, so the current article title should not be interpreted as a compound word, but instead is just a natural combination instead of suffix disambiguation. Following this now, I believe means we should continue to now also follow WP:CONSUB for consistent titling of sub-articles related to the parent title. This is also supported if we combine LGBTQ pride and Queer pride, which is about double that of just LGBT pride per Google Ngram and this also shows that LGBT pride is on a downwards trend since 2017, while LGBTQ pride and Queer pride both are on an upwards trajectory, both individually, as well as combined having overtaken just LGBT pride since 2016. The other alternative would be to break from the natural title disambiguation and call the aticle Pride (LGBTQ) in recognition that the name of the article is just Pride and that the prefix or suffix are just disambiguators from Pride (disambiguation) terms. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Folklore of Russia → Russian folklore – The article content is specifically about Russian folklore. Folklore of other numerous indigenous peoples of Russia are completely different. The lede of the moved page must be edited accordingly. And "Folklore of Russia" must be turned into a list: "Russian folklore", "Chuvanh folklore", "Bashkir folklore", "Karelian-Finnish folklore", "Yakut folklore", etc. It may be supplanted with a text of mutual influence of these folklores, is scholarly articles exist. and/or sections may be created, with summaries of the above folklores, per WP:Summary style. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield pet-eating hoax – See this Talk page discussion. (1) Consensus to omit "Ohio" per WP:CONCISE: although there are numerous other cities named Springfield in the United States, none have been subject to widely publicized claims that domestic animals are being stolen and eaten. (2) Consensus to change "cat" to "pet": although the hoax clearly began with cats, it almost immediately grew to encompass preexisting rumors of Springfield waterfowl being eaten, and Donald Trump's now-famous debate quote includes dogs and unspecified other pets. (3) Consensus NOT to include "immigrant", "migrant", or "Haitian" per WP:CONCISE: not strictly necessary to disambiguate the topic. (4) Changing the word "hoax" to "rumor", "conspiracy theory", or "claim": this was the most contentious part of the previous RMs and clearly failed to reach consensus. I respectfully request that we confine the RM discussion to the less contentious words in the article name. Carguychris (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Éric Borel → Cuers massacre – This could go either way, but I think this article would be better scoped as an article on the event and not the perpetrator, given WP:BIO1E. Admittedly, a very large proportion of the coverage on the event is about Borel, so even as an event-based article it will probably still largely be about him, but given that he has no notability outside of it and how the event is covered I believe it will be easier to structure and improve as an event-based article. The common title for the event in French is "Tuerie de Cuers", literally Cuers massacre. There were killings in other locations but the sources call it this. Also not all of the victims were killed through shooting, so a title with that would be slightly misleading. This incident is usually referred to without the year in French given how notorious it was (I think it's the worst non-terror mass shooting in France), but admittedly is not too well known overseas so specifying the year may be necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [2] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 23, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Pornography laws by region → Restrictions on pornography – Someone may have a better idea for a rename, so I'm seeking input. The current formulation — "laws" – is not sufficiently precise (WP:PRECISION), limiting the scope of addressing, in addition to "laws" in the sense of de jure aspects, also the enforcement situation by governments. For instance, South Korea is listed in the table as a country where production and distribution are prohibited, but appears nonetheless green in the accompanying map; China does not formally criminalise possession, yet there was a controversial 2002 incident of police breaking into a couple's home whilst they watched pornography, fining and jailing them (article in Chinese); in Egypt, there have been some statements by courts and prosecutors following the growth of Islamist politics in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 revolution, yet internet pornography is not blocked, unlike in some other Arab countries. Clearly, the article has been — and should be better — addressing both the de jure and quasi-legal situations. The present title yields undesired ambiguity. Similar Wikipedia titles include Restrictions on TikTok in the United States and Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States. It would make little sense to prefer e.g. "Legality of TikTok"/"Laws on TikTok in the United States" over its present title. Y. Dongchen (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The OGK → Matt Taven and Mike Bennett – The article is under a name they used years ago. The team of Taven and Bennett has been working under several names (Kingdom, OGK, Honor no More, Undisputed Kingdom)... The most used name is The Kingdom, but there is the article about the larger stable. So, maybe an article named Matt Taven and Mike Bennett to talk about the tag team career is the best option. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso shooting → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting – Per WP:UCRN. Though at the time of the shooting (around 2019) the shooting was more commonly referred to as something in the vein of "El Paso shooting" by reliable sources, in recent years reliable sources trend towards calling it something akin to "El Paso Walmart shooting". Out of 50 articles published since 2020 about the incident, 42 mention Walmart in the title while 8 do not. The 'Walmart' aspect appears to be part of a commonly recognised naming convention, which should be reflected in the page's title. Reliable sources that tended to include 'Walmart' in their titles include CNN, PBS, BBC News, ABC News, AP News, The Independent, the Washington Post, NBC News and others. Local news sources, such as the Texas Tribune and El Paso Times, tended to also refer to 'Walmart' in their titles. I recommend '2019 El Paso Walmart shooting' as it fits other naming conventions. If needed, I can provide several of the referenced articles, though they can be found by Google search. Macxcxz (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 22, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Kim Jong-hyun → Jonghyun – Proposing moving the above page from the current full name to the mononym as per WP:COMMONNAME. The subject of the article is most commonly known mononomously and had never used their full name in any professional capacity. Article states as such that the subject was known mononomously. Additionally, it is unnecessary to disambiguate this article by using the family name because there are no other mononymous individuals with Wikipedia articles that share that name. Referring to the subject as his stage name would bring the article in line with other members of Shinee: Taemin, Onew, and Key Jonghyun currently redirects to Jong-hyun; propose moving over the redirect and putting a hatnote on this page saying something to the effect of "For other people with this given name, see Jong-hyun" RachelTensions (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Assyrian–Chaldean–Syriac diaspora → Assyrian diaspora – Much like my request to rename "Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden" to "Assyrians in Sweden", the reasoning applies that the article refers to the same people as simply "Assyrian", while respecting that there are several different identifications for them such as "Syriac", "Chaldean", and "Aramean". Additionally, it would bring the article to the pattern of other articles that talk about the Assyrian diaspora, especially as the article is no longer prone to edit-warring as it was when it was first made. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Senkaku Islands dispute → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute – This move is supported by principles of WP:COMMONNAME, precision, naturalness, and NPOVtitle. This article discusses a territorial dispute between China and Japan which has sometimes flared up. From the Chinese perspective, the islands are the Diaoyu islands. From the Japanese perspective, they are the Senkaku Islands. Our current title pre-supposes the Japanese perspective in Wikivoice. First, we should avoid this for principles of common name. Recent academic sources already in the article which use Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute include at a minimum Wang (2024), Chen (2023), and Zhao (2023). An initial review of English google results also shows our article to be an outlier, with most sources using both names for the disputed islands. The move also helps precision, as the current title may be unclear to English-language readers general readers who may have first heard the Chinese usage but not be familiar with the Japanese usage yet. Finally, NPOV is served by not presuming the correctness of one view of the islands over another. Either Diaoyu/Senkaku or Senkaku/Diaoyu make sense - I think it is better to alphabetize so that no one presumes we are endorsing a claim, but at least in English I recognize that Senkaku/Diaoyu is more common order. The key point is to include both terms. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden → Assyrians in Sweden – All other articles that talk about the Assyrian diaspora on English Wikipedia are labeled as simply "Assyrians in (respective country)" without any hyphening or other names included. I am requesting that the name of "Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden" be changed to accommodate this pattern, while continuing to have the article respect the nomenclature that the communities of Assyrians in Sweden use besides Assyrian, including Syriac or Aramean. Additionally, the page itself is not presently subject to edit-warring as it used to be a decade ago, which may help the case for a rename. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Boost Mobile (United States) → Boost Mobile – The American mobile network operator is the primary topic. Its article received 118,726 page views in the past year, compared to 12,525 for the Australian mobile virtual network operator and 13,993 for the disambiguation page. Boost Mobile United States is more discussed in reputable sources and it has 7.3 million wireless customers. It is one of the four nationwide American wireless carriers, with its own 5G NR network, while Boost Mobile Australia is an MVNO with 700,000 customers. 2018rebel 22:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 2018rebel 00:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[2] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^ https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/resource-pages/department_of_defense_police_-2017
  2. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 21, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [18] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [19] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ a b Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Flood control → Flood management – A researcher has informed me that the terminology in this article around flood control and flood mitigation is incorrect. It's a confusing matter as these terms are often used interchangably, but they are in fact distinct. I'll be making some edits soon in an attempt to resolve this - apparently flood control is technically more about physical barriers to directly manage flood water while flood mitigation encompasses both flood control measures (physical barriers) as well as non-structural aspects like flood insurance, flood prediction, etc. I proposed this article "Flood control" is moved to "Flood management" as a more general term which would encompass flood control and flood mitigation as well as flood risk management etc. (See also Wang et al., 2020). TatjanaClimate (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 21:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 20, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Gender self-identification → Gender self-determination – This page is about the legal human right to determine one's gender in documents. Gender self-identification refers to the act of self-identifying or self-conceptualizing one's own gender identity. Self-determination includes not only the freedom to self-identify, but also the freedom to disidentification (not identifying as something doesn't automatically mean self-identifying as another thing). And thus gender self-determination is more precise and concise. --MikutoH talk! 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Extremely online → Chronically online – Chronically online is the common name. I looked up "chronically online", "terminally online", and "extremely online" with quotation marks on Google, and 933,000, 240,000, 153,000 search results were returned respectively (the numbers may vary, but not the order). Chronically online is also the descriptive name, as chronically and acutely are two different things, with terminally and extremely possibly referring to acutely, which would be an inaccurate characterization. Anecdotally, I hear chronically online slightly more commonly than terminally online while almost never hearing extremely online, which has been backed by the search results. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 19, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Oracle Cerner → Oracle Health – Continuing the rebranding of the Cerner and Oracle Cerner to Oracle Health. Now that cerner.com has been redirected to oracle.com/health, and the page uses the branding of "Oracle Health", I feel as though this is the correct namespace for this page. Of course with redirects from Cerner and Oracle Cerner to the new page name. Tim (Talk) 22:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Altaic languages → Altaic hypothesis – Per above This article has been a constant struggle to get the academic consensus to be the focus of the article, particularly in light of many people simply not realizing the Altaic hypothesis isn't actually widely accepted as fact. "Altaic hypothesis" is heavily used in the literature (i.e. here) and allows us to differentiate the sprachbund and language family arguments more clearly in the body of the article. It also means someone looking up the topic on Wikipedia who isn't familiar with it isn't going to be met with the same heading we use for language families followed up immediately by a statement that it isn't likely a genetic language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Whitewashing (censorship) → Whitewashing (propaganda) – It's not a censorship practice, which is a direct suppression of material, usually by force or threat of force by some entity with power such as a government. It's a propaganda or public relations practice, and that is what the article talks about. Whitewashing is pretty closely related to spin (propaganda) really. "Whitewashing (coverup)" would be reasonable too maybe, and sugarcoat, launder, excuse, and other terms could be in play too; there's no one perfect term, but it says here that "Whitewashing (propaganda)" is the best term. Herostratus (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gyat → Gyatt – "Gyatt" is potentially the more common spelling, at least in my experience online (The provided sources seem split). The Kai Cenat quote in the article describing the word’s expanded popularity from his usage spells it as Gyatt. The disambiguation page currently present at "Gyatt" contains an alternate spelling for guyot that is unsourced and mentioned nowhere on the target article. "Gyat" could merge to "Gyatt", guyot should be removed, and the USS Gyatt linking should be a note at the top. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading of Beans 05:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 18, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 CrowdStrike incident → 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages – Been a few months since the last RM with consensus to move, but a flawed process resulting in no consensus on the new title. I am going to do a simpler RM, one that simply asks if the most popular title, that had an average score of 9/10 in the poll that was run, should be accepted. It seems clear to me the word "outage" needs to be in the title, "incident" is horribly vague an not the common name whatsoever. Its a little bit of a thorny one, since CrowdStrike caused the outage but CrowdStrike doesn't actually deliver the services themselves that crashed (Windows primarily but included other services). "2024 CrowdStrike-caused IT outages" might be more technically correct, however that seems awkward and unwieldy to me. If you don't like the current title but want a different one than proposed, please say what title you think is best and if many people want a different title we'll ping the involved editors to decide out of the main options presented. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:52, 18 September 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.

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eric XI of Sweden → Erik Eriksson (king) – The WP:COMMONNAME for this king is "Erik Eriksson". * Ngram shows that Erik Eriksson has been more common in the literature since 1910 or so. However, "Erik Eriksson" is also a common name for other people, so the full curve for "Erik Eriksson" cannot be attributed to the king. The decline in the use of "Eric XI" is more clear. * Reliable sources usually use the name Erik Eriksson. See e.g. GBooks search for Erik+1222+1250. Typical example is the Cambridge History of Scandinavia. Britannica does not have a dedicated page for him, but the "Learn more page" is titled Erik Eriksson. *There are a lot of other Erik Erikssons (dab page), and the king is not the primary topic. For disambiguation, I suggest the parenthetical disambiguation, which would be a concise choice. I don't believe our hands are tied very strongly by WP:NCROY here since its applicability to medieval Sweden is somewhat dubious. These patronymic names are not of the "common stock", and Sweden was not a hereditary monarchy at the time. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 11:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Moggy → Domestic cat (landrace) – Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. Cats are found worldwide. There is no place for a localized colloquialism to be a MAIN page reference on Wikipedia. I am located in the United States and never once have I ever heard the term “moggy” used to refer to a cat. The merging of Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat was an appropriate move as the only difference is the gene for hair growth. However, I don’t understand why a slang term page was revived from like, 2007 to merge the two pages together. Wikipedia Manual of Style in the Opportunities for Commonality section states that as an international English-speaking Wikipedia, using universally accepted terms is much more appropriate. For example, “to mog” or “mogging” in Gen Alpha terms - see mog. Nobody outside of Britian or Australia even knows what a moggy is. To make things messier, there were previous merges and fights about “moggy” vs. “moggie.” Y’all do not need a page for your local colloquialism. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality bullet points 1-4. My new write-up for the beginning of the new article also explains this landrace breed, using hyphenation glossing as is suggested by the Manual of Style: A Domestic shorthair or Domestic longhair cat, sometimes regionally referred to as a moggy, is a landrace breed of cat reproducing without human intervention for type. The vast majority of cats worldwide lack any pedigree ancestry. The landrace can include cats living with humans or in feral colonies. Gene flow moves between the two populations as feral cats are tamed, housecats are released, and free-roaming unneutered cats breed freely. Simmy27star (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ryan Whitney → Ryan Whitney (ice hockey) – Firstly, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between Ryan Whitney and Ryan Whitney (actress) (see similar page view numbers, suggesting equal readership). Ryan Whitney used to be called Ryan Newman, which is where all the problems start. However, after three years, two failed RMs, and a unilateral move by a user, we're passed the WP:TOOSOON stage. Let's say Ryan Whitney (actress)'s WP:COMMONNAME is actually Ryan Whitney (more on that later), and we manage to agree that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC, then, we need to move the pages accordingly and create a proper disambiguation page, instead of what is now at Ryan Whitney (disambiguation).
    Next, for the case of Ryan Newman (racing driver), the page needs to be moved to Ryan Newman, since he would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ryan Newman". We could leave a hatnote at the top so that readers looking for the former Ryan Newman, now Ryan Whitney, could find her. I don't think a Ryan Newman (disambiguation) page is necessary, but let me know. Ryan Dean Newman can stay as is, and we can leave a hatnote if need be.
    Alternate proposal: if you disagree with Ryan Whitney's WP:COMMONNAME being Ryan Whitney, I suggest moving Ryan Whitney (actress) to Ryan Whitney Newman, which is used in a fair chunk of sources and on places like her Instagram page. Ryan Newman (racing driver) is still moved to Ryan Newman, hatnotes are still left at the top, but that way we can leave Ryan Whitney (the ice hockey player) where he is, and just leave a hatnote at the top. Ryan Whitney (disambiguation) can be outright deleted. Ryan Dean Newman, no change but hatnotes where needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 7 September 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) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning. (See Clickstreams from the last three months hidden box below.) Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1247640832"