This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will be automatically removed by RMCD bot (talk) when the backlog is cleared.
Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.
Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.
Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:
No article exists at the new target title;
There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.
If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may
request a technical move.
If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."
If you are here because you want an admin to approve of your new article or your proposed page move, you are in the wrong place.
If this is your first article and you want your draft article moved to the mainspace, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.
Because you are autoconfirmed, you can move most pages yourself. Do not request technical assistance on this page if you can do it yourself.
If you need help determining whether it's okay to move the page to a different title, then please follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves.
To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:
{{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.
Seems like "Churches in Braga" is an appropriate title given it almost exclusively focuses on churches, monasteries, convents, chapels, and sanctuaries... would it be more appropriate to create a new navbox at Template:Braga to make a more general non-churchy navbox about the city and leave the churches as-is? Just spitballing. RachelTensions (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been nominated for deletion, so probably any potential move should be deferred until that process finishes. There isn't a lot of sourcing on this anyway so hard to be sure what the most common capitalisation in sources is. — Amakuru (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.
Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.
Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.
To request a single page move, click on the "New section" (or "Add topic") tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}
Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 23 November 2024" and sign the post for you.
There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:
A request that this page title be changed is under discussion. Please do not move this page until the discussion is closed.
A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).
To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:
{{subst:requested move| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.
RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.
For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.
Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation)andCricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:
If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Use when the proposed new title is given. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:. This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Use when the proposed new title is not known. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:. This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
This template adds subsections for survey and discussion. Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst: Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion. Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:
When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• SupportOppose".
Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.
Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.
Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).
When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.
If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.
Notes
^A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
^Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed. To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.
(Discuss) – Hip hop music → Hip-hop – This RM seeks to address two issues with the current title. First, music is an unnecessary disambiguator. Prior consensus, WP:IMPLICIT or otherwise, has already determined the music genre to be the primary topic, as Hip hop and its hyphenated counterpart already redirect to this page. If editors determine that this is in fact not the primary topic, then Hip hop should not redirect here and Hip hop (disambiguation) should be moved. Among the topics listed on the disambiguation page, Hip hop (culture) is the only other real contender for the primary topic. Pageviews for the past 365 days indicate that interest in the music genre article trumps that of the culture article by ten times, so it isn't even close. Related templates and categories such as Template:Hip hop and Category:Hip hop do not use a "music" qualifier, nor do most sources, so there is no evidence "music" is a necessary part of the term. Simply "hip hop" is more concise. Upon further investigation, it appears the article Hip hop was moved unilaterally to Hip hop (culture) in May 2022, but this actually gives us stronger evidence. Inspecting the pageviews before and after the move, we see that the culture article averaged around 1000 views per day before the move (green line) but dropped to around 200 after the fact (red line), an average that has remained to this day. This suggests most of the pageviews before the move were in fact looking for the music article when they arrived at the undisambiguated Hip hop page. The second issue this RM aims to rectify is the missing hyphen. Ngrams show "hip-hop" as the overwhelmingly preferred term; this holds true when narrowing down to only noun forms. Dictionaries that use a hyphen include the OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, American Heritage, Collins, Britannica, Dictionary.com, The Free Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, and our own sister site Wiktionary; Longman was the only outlier I found. Several of these dictionaries specifically identify "hip hop" as the less common variant. Furthermore, the AP Stylebook recommends "hip-hop" and the Encyclopedia Britannica also uses "hip-hop", as do Spotify and Apple Music. Even if you do not agree with the first part of this proposal, this second part should be uncontroversial as MOS:HYPHEN says to hyphenate attributive compound modifiers anyway, in accordance with standard grammar conventions. This is why we hyphenate African-American culture but not African Americans. Thus, if you oppose a move to Hip-hop, please consider supporting a move to Hip-hop music at the very least rather than blanket opposing. Finally, please note that the outcome of this RM will affect all hip-hop–related articles, categories, and templates; due to the sheer number of pages involved, they have not been tagged here but will be moved accordingly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Dave Burke → deleted to make room for move – Sole Wikipedia entry bearing this exact name, thus obviating need for the parenthetical qualifier "(Australian footballer)". There is likewise no need for the Dave Burke disambiguation page which was created in September 2016 and lists two men, only one of which is named "Dave", without even including a link to the David Burke dab page which lists 21 men, including David Burke (politician), who is the other entry upon the Dave Burke dab page. Instead, a hatnote atop the footballer's three-sentence stub can simply specify: For similarly named people, see David Burke (disambiguation). Alternatively, since "Dave" is such a common variation of "David", the footballer's stub can remain as is and Dave Burke can simply redirect to the David Burke dab page. If that option is considered, notice may be taken of another footballer — Davy Burke — whose entry also has no hatnote directing to the David Burke dab page. Perhaps Davy Burke should be likewise moved to Davy Burke (footballer) while Dave Burke along with Davy Burke both redirect to the David Burke dab page. — Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)01:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Larry Gatlin → The Gatlin Brothers – Most sources, including their official website, refer to Larry and his two brothers as a collective unit, with relatively little focus on Gatlin as a solo artist. Almost all of their singles, per Joel Whitburn, were credited to either "the Gatlin Brothers" or "Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers"; in fact, according to Whitburn, no single after 1979 credited Gatlin as a solo artist. While the Whitburn book uses "Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers", more modern sources such as the Grand Ole Opry website use just "the Gatlin Brothers" and refer to them as a three-piece act. As this article covers the career of the group more so than Gatlin as a solo performer, and there is more precedent toward crediting the group, I feel the article should be moved to either "the Gatlin Brothers" or "Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers". Pinging @Caldorwards4:@Martin4647:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)22:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Athletics (baseball) → Athletics (baseball team) – Going from a suggestion by @Spesh531:; I’m finally making this a dedicated move request (not section, as the page was moved while I was typing this originally) so that it’s specifically addressed by the community and there’s a clear consensus for or against this proposal. Now, I understand that other teams like the Texas Rangers (baseball) only have it as (baseball). However, this case is different. In that case, a clear disambiguation is needed, but once it’s established that they’re talking about baseball, it’s understood that they’re talking about team rather than some other terminology. I don’t believe that to be the case here when disambiguating Athletics into (baseball) without any sort of geographic influence in the title. It’s not like, say, the Yankees, removed New York from the title and the article gets called Yankees (baseball). Athletics is a much more general “sports” kind of team title, and therefore, an unfamiliar reader may see the “Athletics (baseball)” title and think the article covers baseball terminology rather than a team; so, with such a general team name, without it being (baseball team), it could be misleading. On that basis, I strongly support (baseball team) over simply (baseball), as it appears to be the strongest, clearest, easiest to understand disambiguation possible. I’m simply seeking a consensus that clearly addresses this; if most are overwhelmingly opposed to (baseball team), I’ll begrudgingly let it stand and withdraw this as SNOW. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 2024 Kursk offensive → Sudzha offensive – The entire narrative of the article is that the Ukrainian Armed Forces didn't reach Kursk, and that is why they failed. But the Ukrainian Armed Forces did not have the goal of capturing the regional center. One of Ukraine's goals was to capture Sudzha, an important transport hub to the north of the Sumy Oblast. And it succeeded. Even if you disagree with me, the offensive never reached Kursk, and therefore the title is simply misleading. MarcusTraianus (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – J. B. Pritzker → JB Pritzker – Largely similar to this discussion, it appears as though Pritzker stylizes his name without any periods. I can't judge if it meets MOS:BIOEXCEPT to the letter, but his official website and social medias do not use periods, so WP:ABOUTSELF could apply [1][2][3]. It also seems like his name is most commonly used without periods in reliable sources, see The New York Times [4], Chicago Tribune [5], and Politico [6], for example. Forbes [7] is the only current source I can find using periods for his name, though without a space. It does look like most sources prior to his gubernatorial run used periods, only beginning to drop them in the years since, so this could perhaps be treated as a name change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Sceptre (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – May 2009 southern Midwest derecho → 2009 Super Derecho – It doesn't appear "Super derecho" as a class of storms has been used to describe too many other storms officially - user-generated sources and the old page "Super-derecho" point to a 2003 derecho in the Northeast but I can't easily verify this in reliable-source media. The sole other storm called this was verified here and exists as June 2012 North American derecho. However, the common name for this event is "Super derecho" with some variant of the date preceding, and "May 2009 southern Midwest derecho" seems to be a uniquely Wikipedia thing. Since there is no confusion when using the 2009 ambiguator, I propose that Super derecho also be a redirect here, potentially with a hatnote as the mode "super derecho" appears to be very rare, owing to structure rather than intensity (the 2020 Midwest derecho didn't have the same structure, and therefore wasn't a super derecho). Departure– (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – National Rifle Association → National Rifle Association of America – What's in a name?National Rifle Association is unique amongst articles relating to National Rifle Associations in the title being arbitrarily abbreviated. The organisation is called the “National Rifle Association of America”, but the en.WP article title omits “of America”. In 2024, this: * Does not conform to WP:Criteria * Does not reflect the most common usage within WP * Deserves re-assessment and scrutiny per WP:GLOBALISE to ensure it is not embedding systemic bias. This proposed move will probably be more controversial than it really should be. WP:CRITERIA * Recognizability: The abbreviated form is only recognisable when contextualised as US/USPol. Most Authority Control sources & third party encyclopaedias use the full name, since context is not available until you start reading the entry. * Naturalness: “of America” is not unnatural - the other articles cope with “of Australia” or “of India”. Moreover, the majority of in-body wikilinks use the full “of America” form, so editors across en.WP don't find it too objectionable. ** Link Count shows 983 indirect links (of which 962 are the "of America" redirect) versus 906 direct links. However, some 556 of the direct links are from articles transcluding the Conservatism US template. In terms of “in-body” or “organic” wikilinks , it’s something like 983 indirect versus just 350 direct. The current title is not actually that commonly used within wikipedia. * Precision: “National Rifle Association” is imprecise and does not unambiguously define the scope. This has caused actual errors and confusion including: ** https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Young_(police_officer)&diff=next&oldid=1059158586 ** https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellingborough_School_CCF&diff=377972454&oldid=375522019 * Concision: “of America” is not verbose. It might be verbose to use it repeatedly once contextualised, but not on first use or as an article title. * Consistency: omitting “of America” is inconsistent with NRA of India/Pakistan/Australia/New Zealand/Norway. We “got away with it” when Wikipedia was more US-centric, but Wikipedia is now covers more global subjects and it deserves re-evaluation to ensure we are not embedding systemic bias. WP:COMMONNAME A 2022 discussion on the Talk page (which was not an RfM discussion and therefore mainly engaged involved editors) came to No Consensus for Change. Some editors cited WP:COMMONNAME when opposing the move. However, this seems to be a What First Comes to Mind interpretation as COMMONNAME is really intended for situations like Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali. Although there are exceptions where an abbreviation or acronym is used (e.g. FIFA), the only way I can see it applying here is by arguing that “the abbreviated form is what mass media use”. However, COMMONNAME is more nuanced than that:
“Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. … When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.”
(Discuss) – Passage Publishing → Jonathan Keeperman – More of a rescoping than a move. Passage Publishing does not really fulfill our more stringent NCORP guidelines, however its founder, Keeperman, fulfills NBASIC. This is an attempt to resolve the notability issue, as I strongly think this article should exist in some form - and most of the articles that talk about Passage Press are really about Keeperman. If the sourcing existed I would prefer it the other way around, but alas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Frostly (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story. The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true. So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Apollo Sauroctonos → Apollo Sauroktonos – most of the sources that are currently in the article, as well as external sources not on the page, refer to it as 'sauroktonos' instead of 'sauroctonos'. additionally, the letter 'c' does not exist in the attic greek alphabet and using a kappa (k) is a more appropriate transliteration. however, a few sources do use the form with a 'c' so it is an appropriate redirect 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:9C41:7BD2:C8D1:758 (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Political appointments by Donald Trump → Political appointments by Donald Trump in his first term – Opening this discussion to discuss a good page name for these pages. As Trump has won a 2nd term, many of his existing presidential pages have been moved to "first ___ " (e.g. First cabinet of Donald Trump, First presidential transition of Donald Trump). Don't think that verbiage works well here, but asking for input for a good naming scheme. Also, feel free to add other pages that should be moved, as Trump is likely to have a new set of appointees, etc, during his 2nd term. Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.cyberdog958Talk 04:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Vagina → Human Vagina – I'm proposing we move the information in this article about the human vagina to a new article titled Human Vagina, and likewise stop the redirect of Human Vagina to Vagina. Wikipedia has separate articles for Penis and Human Penis, which implies that men's genitals make them human, whereas women's genitals are no different from animals'. This violates WP:NPOV, being a form of misogyny. As it reads in this article, 'Because a better understanding of female genitalia can help combat sexual and psychological harm with regard to female development, researchers endorse correct terminology for the vulva.' Likewise, there is much psychological harm in implying that women are more animal than men. Moving the relevant material over to Human Vagina will remove bias and help keep Wikipedia neutral. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – List of census divisions of Ontario → List of administrative divisions of Ontario – 95% of this article content is *about* administrative divisions, not about census divisions, and I'd argue that administrative divisions are a lot more important than how the census is subdivided. Currently the page *lists* census divisions but categorizes them by their form of administration which is strange, and leads to confusing results for Brant/Brantford and Haldimand/Norfolk. A separate page about census divisions could also be created although I think just specifying within this page where there are differences would be sufficient. Somatochlora (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge → United States support for the Khmer Rouge – Reopening discussion. According to the above backlog, editors have overwhelmingly voiced support for the requested move. I fail to understand @Estar8806's decision to close the discussion and sideline the consensus that is apparent. As I wrote him on this user talk: Multiple statements in the article are factual and undisputed and correspond to US support of the Khmer Rouge: 1) U.S. voted for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer Rouge-dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) to retain Cambodia's United Nations (UN) seat until as late as 1993, long after the Khmer Rouge had been mostly deposed by Vietnam. = diplomatic US support 2) I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.= diplomatic US support has admitted by a member of the then US government (quoted here from the NYTimes source of ref 20) I will not even go on investigate the claims of political scholars quoted in the wiki article since this much is already tantamount to US support. NokGradten (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.– robertsky (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Robin Hood in popular culture → Robin Hood in literature and the arts – A lot of this stuff is not "popular culture". A play performed 1475 is not going to be filmed and shown at the Cineplex. It might be studied by a university professor. Ditto stuff written in 1678 and 1712 etc. "Hodd" is an academic work. There's an 1860 opera, and an MA course on Robin. Bunch of ballads and folk tales from centuries ago at least. Probably ther're a few more.
If there is such a thing as "popular culture" as opposed to just "culture" anymore, these aren't it. We don't want to split the article or name it "Robin Hood in popular and elite culture". And after all even comics are literature and pop songs the arts, so we're not being untrue. And there are a few articles already that use this form. Herostratus (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Clarissa (novel) → Clarissa; or, The History of a Young Lady – Opening up this discussion again, as I'd like to confirm the correct result was reached in last week's discussion. There was clear consensus to move the article away from plain Clarissa, but not as clear a consensus for the destination. I believe that including the subtitle rather than a parenthetical disambiguator is a better solution, (a) per WP:SUBTITLE, (b) Richardson's other (major) novel is at Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded, so the proposed move will be consistent with it, and (c) as mentioned above, there is also an unfinished novel by Stefan Zweig called Clarissa, which potentially could have an article at some point, making the current title of this article ambiguous. Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Gateway, Inc. → Gateway 2000 – As this is a defunct company and is looked on retrospectively, I think Gateway 2000 is the COMMONNAME of the subject. The company seems to be better known in retrospect and remembered under its original name with the "2000" added to "Gateway". Sceeegt (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Paris Saint-Germain Academy → Paris Saint-Germain Youth Academy – This is the correct name per this and this. "Paris Saint-Germain Academy" is the name for a program of football camps for children across the world. It's not the name for the actual youth academy of Paris Saint-Germain FC. The old RM was a mistake on my part. The academy is usually called the "youth academy of PSG" or something along those lines most of the time too. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – United Volleyball Club → Cocolife Asset Managers – As per WP:COMMONNAME. This is a defunct team, which was widely referred to as the "COCOLIFE Asset Managers" by the media (except in 2019 when they lost Cocolife as a sponsor) despite for using the crest on the infobox, actual jerseys and social media presence used "Cocolife". That is just the nature of sports team in the Philippines. It doesn't make sense to keep the name of a club which had a brief name change at the end of their existence. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Klabat University → Universitas Klabat – The proposed name change from "Klabat University" to "Universitas Klabat" is necessary to align with the official name used by the institution in all formal and legal contexts. "Universitas Klabat" is the recognized and registered name in Indonesia, reflecting its identity and adherence to national naming conventions for higher education institutions. Updating the title ensures accuracy, consistency, and better representation of the university's official branding and communication. Unklabwebmaster (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Leonid Kadeniuk → Leonid Kadenyuk – The article itself constantly refers to Kadenyuk. "Leonid Kadenyuk" is his name on Britannica and in several sources. "Leonid Kadenyuk" gets 5,740 results on Google while "Leonid Kadeniuk" gets 2,830. The Y seems to be the correct spelling. It also follows the custom of similar names like Igor Kornelyuk. Evedawn99 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ross Stores → Ross Dress for Less – There seems to be a favor for calling it "Ross Dress for Less". I am presenting more evidence than last time. To wit: * If you search for a store on Google Maps, every store is labeled "Ross Dress for Less", and Google Maps usually defers to the most common nomenclature. * Independent news articles such as this, this, this, and this use "Ross Dress for Less", whereas searching "Ross Stores" tends to give press releases, corporate directories, and more financial-leaning sources. * Directories for shopping malls which have one, such as this, use the full name "Ross Dress for Less". * The company's official Facebook and Instagram accounts both use "Ross Dress for Less". * The copyright for the logo includes the "Dress for Less" part, suggesting it is part of the name and not just a slogan. I could not find any instances where just the "Ross" part of the logo was used, further suggesting "Dress for Less" is officially part of the company name. Despite what was said in the previous RM, I don't consider the "Dress for Less" part promotional in tone if it's legally part of the name any more so than the "dollar" in Dollar General is promotional. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Raladic (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Parcels (band) → Parcels – The band is the only mention to a plural of the term and gets significantly the most views [[14]]. Seems redundant to disambiguate when I'd say it's the primary topic here (note I am talking about parcels plural, not the singular parcel) especially when considering WP:SMALLDETAILS. Otherwise I'd be open to changing the redirect from Parcels → Parcels (band) to Parcels → Parcel, but as it is it's flawed. orangesclub🍊04:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Guenette → Guenette, Guadeloupe – Small community, not large enough to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over a fairly common French surname. Even its parent commune of Le Moule only has a population of 22K total, meaning that this community (whose article doesn't contain any population figure) has far less than that since it isn't even Le Moule's primary urban area. But with seven people carrying the surname listed on the disambiguation page and at least one other person I know of who has an article on fr that hasn't been translated into English yet (and I haven't even conducted any comprehensive searches for other people who might still be missing), the surname page should take priority, especially since the town's name derives from the surname rather than vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Lampad → Lampades – These figures are only ever referred to as a group as far as I know (that is, the singular "Lampad" is never used), so the page should not be at "Lampad" (this falls under the second exception at WP:PLURAL). Either "Lampades" or "Lampads" would be fine, although the majority of reliable secondary sources which mention them seem to use the former transliteration from what I can tell: * Sources with "Lampades": Gantz, Johnston, Serafini (in the English abstract), and Calame (in French) * Sources with "Lampads": Campbell, and Larson's Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore This title would also be a more accurate reflection of the Greek (Λαμπάδες). – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Ghazala Javed → Murder of Ghazala Javed – Nearly all sources in the article primarily cover the circumstances of Ghazala Javed's murder. Her murder has gained significant attention in media coverage, while details about her life and career receive relatively limited focus thus failing WP:SINGER. The article be renamed to the suggested title per WP:CRITERIA. There is enough information about her killing and later development such as this, this, and this. I think the suggested title be adopted per English language sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Bensci54 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Fatal Vision controversy → Fatal Vision – In 2013, this was moved by a now-indeffed account, on the grounds that since the content in the article was about the drama the book caused it was more notable. Searching for sources, the controversy does not appear to be notable in an of itself to fulfill WP:NEVENT. While the book is notable, due to both sourcing, reviews, and adaptions, so move it back. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Frost12:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Islamic terrorism → ? – Both words of the current title are a problem: * Islamic - Saying "Islamic terrorism" without qualification could be interpreted as implying that "terrorism" is typical or intrinsic to Islam, or all Muslims. * Terrorism - The word terrorism is too vague, and too politically loaded (MOS:TERRORIST), unless the page is going to be rewritten as a critique of how the label "terrorist" is used. I don't have a specific alternative to suggest, but I believe the current page name needs discussion. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kuji-in → Kuji-kiri – The kuji-in..., also known as Nine Hand Seals, is a system of mudras and associated mantras that consist of nine syllables. ja wiki has articles ja:九字護身法 and ja:九字, currently wikidata connects Kuji-in to 九字, but the ja article only discussed the 9 characters, hand seals and such are in 九字護身法. Kuji-kiri redirects here, and is linked to 九字護身法 in wikidata. Keep "Kuji-in <-> 九字" and "Kuji-kiri <-> 九字護身法" in wikidata, then move and adjust the en article would be the easiest way to solve this. ps, one alternative to "Kuji-kiri" is to translate "九字護身法". Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Keiki-dō → Keiki Province – I think "Provinces" may be more appropriate, but still not sure. I moved all the other Korea prefecture pages from "-dō" to " Prefecture" following the category name, but @robertsky pointed out " Province" may be more appropriate. "Prefecture" has kind of a loose definition, per Prefecture and Prefectures of Japan. The nature of prefectures in various countries differs; it's not really clear to me how these differ from provinces, esp given that colonial Korea was governed differently from Japan. Both "prefecture" and "province" seem to be variously attested to for Korean provinces (as well as the use of transliterations of Korean names for Korean places during the colonial period). English terminology for Korean history is notoriously inconsistent. Reading Prefectures of Japan, it seems like "道" is also used for prefectures, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that it would extend to Korea. Provinces of Japan seems to suggest that Japan itself adopted the prefecture system in the late 19th century, but that doesn't necessarily cover Korea. However, recent RS on the colonial period seem to use "province" for this period (although these all seem to write from Korea-centric perspectives; using Korean-language terms for concepts during the colonial period). * [35] * [36] * [37] * [38] Edit: more sources (see below for my analysis of the situation) * [39] * [40] * [41] * [42] *[43] In short, I think there's a WP:COMMONNAME argument to use "Province" instead of "Prefecture". Either of the two is certainly better than the previous "-dō". seefooddiet (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Pot-holder → ? – "Pot-holder" with a hyphen seems to be by far the least used version. Unfortunate, both pot holder and potholder are very close in usage: Google ngrams, Google Trends (shows "pot holder" being about 50% more searched for than "potholder" in the past few years, before then they were nearly identical), 1,970 Google scholar for "pot holder" (which includes pot-holder but a quick skim finds "pot holder" far out numbers it), 1,450 Google scholar for "potholder". Dictionaries that I looked at are 5-2 in favor of "potholder": "potholder": Collins (which labels it as British), Cambridge (which labels it as "mainly US"), Oxford Learner's (Which labels it as "(North American English)", American Heritage, and Dictionary.com; while for "pot holder": M-W; OED. I'm not a huge fan of just going by dictionary but perhaps give how similar ngrams and such are, I'd lean toward "potholder" which is also the direction ngramas has started to move toward, although "pot holder" was much more common from the 1860s until the late 1960s. I also don't think there seems to be sufficient English variety affinity for either spaced or not to justify using the uncommon hyphenated version. Skynxnex (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.JJPMaster (she/they) 03:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
(Discuss) – Electrology → Electrolysis hair removal – A quick Google search reveals that "electrology hair removal" exclusively returns "electrolysis hair removal". This is the word used by the US Food and Drug Administration, the American Electrology Association, and numerous reliable sources. Courtesy ping participants in the Electrolysis (cosmetology) -> Electrology move (2005) @Jokestress and @Omegatron. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Wikipedia:Outing (essay) → ? – This essay currently has rather poor visibility, and I believe its title is to blame. For one, adding a hatnote to the target of Wikipedia:Outing and Wikipedia:OUTING to refer back to this essay seems like it would cause more confusion than help, especially given the already-large stack of hatnotes at that target. For two, this essay may be outdated, given it was created in 2006 and its most recent edit was in 2013; due to this, it seems some of the claims in the essay may be inaccurate since Wikipedia has advanced some of its policies since then. In a nutshell, I'm opening this move request since a new title for this page is a start, though not necessarily the end nor the only fix. Steel1943 (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎(𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔)17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Minnesota Fats → Minnesota Fats (character) – Why isn't the article at Minnesota Fats? That is by far the most common name used here to refer to him. Every source in the article uses Minnesota Fats, to the point even his NYT obit called him that and not Rudolph Wanderone, and the word "Wanderone" is hardly used in the text of the article instead of "Fats". Sure, he named himself after a fictional character, but inbound links and page views suggest most people looking for "Minnesota Fats" are looking for the pool player and not the character. It's blatantly obvious Wanderone's legacy has far outlasted that of the fictional character from whom he derived his name. This seems a crystal-clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME to have his article at "Rudolph Wanderone", and to me, it's like if we arbitrarily decided to move Lady Gaga's article to "Stefani Germanotta". I'm genuinely shocked no one else has even considered this issue in the past ten years. Previous discussion in 2014 had everyone pulling a different direction, and me in a more hostile mood, so I'm hoping to get a consensus this time with a clearer focus from both me and others. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Stadion Miejski (Białystok) → Białystok Municipal Stadium – I am submitting this request to revert the article title of the stadium in Białystok to its previous title, Białystok Municipal Stadium in light of recent actions by the user FromCzech. The move to the Polish-language title Stadion Miejski (Białystok) was made unilaterally and appears inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:UE. This guideline encourages the use of English translations where appropriate to maintain accessibility for the global readership. FromCzech has argued for the name change without prior discussion, potentially as a reaction to a naming debate on Lokotrans Aréna that I initiated. This recent move does not reflect a consensus, and it also disrupts the established consistency within the "Football venues in Poland" category, where nearly all stadium names are translated into English. Notable examples include Father Władysław Augustynek Stadium, Gdynia Municipal Stadium, Kielce Municipal Stadium, and Raków Municipal Stadium. I urge that the title "Białystok Municipal Stadium" be restored to uphold Wikipedia’s principles of consistency and transparency, while also preventing this matter from being affected by personal disputes or editing motivated by anything other than Wikipedia's editorial standards. Paradygmaty (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk)21:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Fischer random chess → Chess 960 – "Chess 960" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this chess variant, based on press coverage (newspapers.com articles found from the last 20 years: 82 mentioning "Chess 960" and 65 mentioning Fischer Random Chess, many mentioning both), major chess sites including chess.com and lichess.org, recent books, and chess organizations. Other Wikipedias have also started to move away from "Fischer" in the title with 20 out of 39 using "960" in the title instead. While Fischer Random Chess is still often used as a term, it is no longer the most common name. In recent years, "Fischer Random Chess" is typically mentioned only once in reliable sources, often parenthetically or as a secondary term, with "Chess 960" used for the remainder of the article, book, etc. While the article does discuss several other variants, the focus of the article is Chess 960 and it makes sense to keep the article history connected to Chess 960 as a topic. As to "Chess 960" vs. "Chess960", including the space seems to be more frequent based on newspapers.com and Google searches, but both are often used. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk)21:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Kahina → Dihya al-Kahina – Based on my research in the above thread, I think Dihya al-Kahina is a more accurate and precise name, as Dihya appears to have been a Berber given name and Kahina is simply a title or honorific meaning "prophetess." Most sources use both names when referring to her. Andre🚐09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Georgian Jews → History of the Jews in Georgia (country) – I was asked by IZAK to make this as a technical move, but I think it needs confirmation via RM. These articles are standardized at titles beginning "History of the Jews in...", but there have been various alternative endings to the title proposed and/or used at various times, including "History of the Jews in the Republic of Georgia" (this isn't a great one because Georgia obviously has a much longer history than any single political entity), "History of the Jews in Georgia", etc. What should the end of this title be? Thanks. asilvering (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Hiawatha (train) → Hiawatha (MILW train) – These paranthetical names aren't quite as clear and precise as they can be since multiple other trains have used these names throughout their history. The simple parenthetical "(train)" isn't really enough to distinguish these different trains from each other. The first article is solely about the multiple trains operated by the Milwaukee Road which predate the current Amtrak train along the corridor of the same name. The name could be changed to "trains" to indicate the multitude of different trains covered in the article. The Amtrak/Via Maple Leaf isn't the only named train with a termini in Toronto, especially the historical Lehigh Valley Railroad train, which also ran to New York City, albeit with a different alignment. The name of the article could also be changed to maybe "Amtrak/Via", but the train from my understanding is moreso grouped with Amtrak. The Amtrak Palmetto is the successor of the ACL train of the same name. The fourth article is about a completely unrelated historical ATSF train operating in California separate from the current Amtrak train. The Wolverine is also the name of a historical New York Central Railroad train. Nonetheless, I don't necessarily believe in these names as final as I want them to be subject to change, and not all of them need to be implemented. I will say that if we decide that the simple parenthetical of "(train)" is sufficient in describing the articles in question, then perhaps instead the article titles for the Amtrak Pere Marquette, Silver Star, and Valley Flyer could have "Amtrak" dropped from their parentheticals for naming consistency across all Amtrak train articles. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.—Compassionate727(T·C)13:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – 601-603 High Street → 601–603 High Street – If I understand correctly, these are ranges of street addresses. Per MOS:NUMRANGE, ranges of numbers should be expressed with an en dash, not a hyphen. I confirmed that the NHRP uses "--" when describing the last two, which is equivalent to using an en dash. The 900-910 North Lake Shore article and some off-Wikipedia sources use "900 910" and "900/910", and the buildings' branding seems to use "900/910", and that topic is a pair of buildings, and units within each building are referred to with street addresses of 900 for one building and 910 for the other, so perhaps it should be "900 and 910". I would just perform these moves boldly, but I wonder whether someone might disagree with this interpretation or suggest alternative titles. For example, two cited sources ([50] and [51]) refer to the first topic simply as 601 High Street; it is a single building. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Sennecaster (Chat) 01:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Penn-Can Mall → Driver's Village – Historical mall articles usually take the current name if there is currently another business in the building. For instance, NetPark Tampa Bay not East Lake Square Mall, Wonderland Village not Wonderland Mall, et al. The only exceptions seem to be if the property is demolished or abandoned, such as Forest Fair Mall. As Driver's Village is the current name of the mall's former occupant, I think the precedent of NetPark Tampa Bay should be applied here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)18:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tajiks of Xinjiang → Chinese Tajiks – In previous discussions over a decade and a half ago, the main points of contention were: "Which name(s) is more commonly used in reliable sources (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME)?" and "Which name(s) is appropriate, given that 'Tajik' is a misnomer because the group is actually ethnic Pamiris?" Since the discussions in 2009, scholarly articles and books have generally been split in usage of "Tajiks of Xinjiang" and "Chinese Tajiks". Neither name solves the second problem, and adding "Pamiris" in parentheses isn't necessary, in my opinion. The group itself has a distinct history and culture, and it is not merely a situation of Pamiris being on a different side of an international border (i.e. not Tajikistan). The Chinese government uses the term "Chinese Tajiks" in English to distinguish the group from Tajiks and Tajikistanis in China. It's also worth noting that members of this ethnic group have travelled and made homes elsewhere in China, so it doesn't make sense to have an article title that limits them to one specific part of the country. This article isn't about Tajiks or Pamiris who live in Xinjiang, but a distinct ethnicity that originated from the region. The article should therefore be renamed and moved to "Chinese Tajiks". Yue🌙 01:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia17:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Discuss) – Tel al-Sultan attack → ? – I am bringing this discussion back up with a stronger argument and after the Good Article review has concluded. I have identified many sources calling this incident a massacre. There are likely more, so feel free to add any. They include The Guardian (opinion piece), Morrocco World News, The Peninsula Qatar, Truthout, Al-Ahram, Daily Sabah, Jacobin, Vox (Not explicitly, though cites someone calling it one, says it’s a slaughter in headline, and says Israel is massacring Palestinians), TRT World (Partially reliable) Le Monde, Middle East Eye, El Pais, The New Arab, Mondoweiss, Gulf News, Huffington Post (Disputed reliability), The Intercept, The Nation (opinion piece), Aljazeera and Aljazeera Arabic. Many mainstream media articles also cite people who describe the attack as a massacre, though do not explicitly claim it to be so. Humanitarian groups Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor and Doctors Without Borders have described the incident as a massacre. Officials of Colombia,[52] Saudi Arabia,[53] the State of Palestine,[54] and the Organization of Islamic States[55] have called the attack a massacre. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese has called it a massacre.[56] Additionally, Hamas and the Palestinian Civil Defense in Rafah have called the incident a massacre.[57] Last time, there was also the issue of whether the attacks were intentional, as “massacre” is a loaded word that may imply intentionally killing civilians. Firstly, NYT quotes an expert who suggests Israel may have tried to mitigate harm but accepted civilian casualties,[58] and an MSNBC analysis indicates Israel should have known there were civilians in the area.[59] Al-Jazeera’s fact checking agency[60] and India Today[61] think so, and suggestions by Israel that a weapons dump exploded have been refuted by the New York Times, who found no evidence of the claim.[62] Egypt[63] and the PA[64] also allege that it was intentional. There is still the issue of what exactly to call the article in any case. We have some options: A: Keep it the same, Tel al-Sultan _. B: Rafah tent camp _. C: Just "Rafah _" Personisinsterest (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
