Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Updating requested pagemoves list
Updating requested pagemoves list
Line 4: Line 4:
{{ombox|text=Do not attempt to edit this list manually; [[User:RMCD bot|a bot]] will automatically update the page soon after the {{tls|Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed.<br />'''To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.'''}}
{{ombox|text=Do not attempt to edit this list manually; [[User:RMCD bot|a bot]] will automatically update the page soon after the {{tls|Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed.<br />'''To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.'''}}


'''This list is also available''' in a '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)|page-link-first format]]''' and in '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table)|table format]].''' 67 discussions have been relisted.''
'''This list is also available''' in a '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)|page-link-first format]]''' and in '''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (table)|table format]].''' discussions have been relisted.''


===March 2, 2024===
===March 2, 2024===
Line 768: Line 768:
* ''([[Talk:The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ#Requested move 16 January 2024|Discuss]])'' – '''[[Jimmy Smith at the Organ]] → [[Jimmy Smith at the Organ, Vols. 1 & 2]]''' – The move destination already exists. [[User:TlonicChronic|TlonicChronic]] ([[User talk:TlonicChronic|talk]]) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
* ''([[Talk:The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ#Requested move 16 January 2024|Discuss]])'' – '''[[Jimmy Smith at the Organ]] → [[Jimmy Smith at the Organ, Vols. 1 & 2]]''' – The move destination already exists. [[User:TlonicChronic|TlonicChronic]] ([[User talk:TlonicChronic|talk]]) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)</small>
** [[The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ]] → [[Jimmy Smith at the Organ]]
** [[The Incredible Jimmy Smith at the Organ]] → [[Jimmy Smith at the Organ]]

* ''([[Talk:Pākehā settlers#Requested move 30 December 2023|Discuss]])'' – '''[[:Pākehā settlers]] → {{no redirect|European settlers in New Zealand}}''' – {{cot|Previous closure|width=95%}} <small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />'''[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Three possible outcomes|No consensus.]]''' See below strong, policy- and guideline-based arguments for moving to the proposed title along with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move. So there is no overall agreement either to keep the current title or to rename this article to the proposed name or any other name. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments, look for and discover new ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a new title. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone [[Template:Clickable button/Publish buttons|stay&nbsp;healthy]]''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)</small> {{mrv-talk|date=15 February 2024|result=no consensus}}
{{cob}}
: – Per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]], [[WP:COMMONALITY]], and [[WP:CONSISTENT]]. First, elsewhere on Wikipedia we don't use [[Pākehā]] to refer to Europeans New Zealanders, we use [[European New Zealanders]]. As such, the proposed title is more consistent with our usage elsewhere. Second, readers from outside New Zealand will not recognize Pākehā; in accordance with [[WP:COMMONALITY]] and [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]], and with the general principle of making Wikipedia accessible to all readers, we should use a term that is widely used in New Zealand, and is recognizable to the broader body of readers; [[European settlers in New Zealand]], rather than [[Pākehā settlers]]. Third, the proposed title is the clear [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. This can be seen by reviewing Scholarly results since 2021: #[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=%22Pakeha+settlers%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 191 sources use "Pākehā settlers"] #[https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=%22European+settlers%22+%22New+Zealand%22 3310 use "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand] Not all results are relevant, but a manual review tells us that enough are to make the COMMONNAME obvious. Finally, [[MOS:TIES]] is overridden here by [[MOS:COMMONALITY]], as "European settlers" is widely used in New Zealand English, as can be seen by these Google News results from the past year limited to New Zealand domains: #[https://www.google.com/search?q=site:.co.nz+%22Pakeha+settlers%22+OR+%22P%C4%81keh%C4%81+settlers%22&tbs=qdr:y&tbm=nws 47 sources use "Pākehā settlers"]. #[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.co.nz+%22European+settlers%22+%22New+Zealand%22+-site%3Atripadvisor.co.nz+-%22P%C4%81keh%C4%81+settlers%22&tbs=qdr%3Ay&tbm=nws 239 sources use "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand]. Of the results for "Pākehā settlers", most are relevant, although some also use "European settlers". Of the results for "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand most are also relevant; a lower ratio than for "Pākehā settlers", but enough to establish the common name. Some true positives are excluded by the requirement that they must mention "New Zealand", which was included to limit the number of false positives, such as New Zealand sources discussing European settlers in Australia. Results that also use "Pākehā settlers" were excluded. This can be further seen by [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=NZ&q=European%20settlers,Pakeha%20settlers,P%C4%81keh%C4%81%20settlers&hl=en Google Trends], which shows that New Zealanders prefer to use "European settlers", and almost never use "Pākehā settlers". This doesn't only establish that the conditions for [[MOS:COMMONALITY]] to apply are met, but that the conditions for [[MOS:TIES]] to apply are not met; in New Zealand English, the most common way of referring to these people is "European settlers", not "Pākehā settlers". [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisted.'''''&nbsp;'''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er&nbsp;there</sup>]] 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)</small>


===Possibly incomplete requests===
===Possibly incomplete requests===

Revision as of 15:54, 2 March 2024

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. 68 discussions have been relisted.

March 2, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Legalism (Chinese philosophy) → New name – this attempt to construct the page has not got off the ground yet although I think next I would make brief descriptions of the figures. I do not care about changing the page name on a personal level it's not my main inquiry. Name change critique is actually based on critique by user airship, that the term Legalism cannot be defined. Same discussion occured in scholarship. Both Fajia and Legalism are anachronisms and should not be used in the page in reference to the figures. They're not used in critical scholarship, and it begs the question who much uses them anyway. I don't actually much know who this conventional scholarship is who supposedly uses the term Legalism. However, the historical term Fajia can and ought to be defined and discussed at some point even if not used as a general moniker, which I don't think generalizing monikers should be used for then. The term Legalism cannot be defined. Where it's actually been used in the past it is used differently. One person defined it as Shang Yang and Han Fei having punishments but he is just one guy from 2005. The Stanford Encyclopedia calls them the fa tradition but I don't think that's all that relevant. Fajia is one of Sima Qian's six schools of thought in Chinese philosophy, that's what the page is supposed to be about. The Book of Han defines it as a Masters Texts tradition. Shang Yang and Shen Buhai are the opposite components of Han Fei's doctrine. They have some several categories I can talk about, but they aren't The Legalist School. Along with a little Shen Dao and a little comparison with other schools, they're some several influential thinkers with different philosophies that connect along some several lines, but not mutually between all of them.. At any rate, I don't care a great deal about a name change, but discussion of the term Fajia, if it is fit in relevantly, ought to be allowed, even if I actually advocate against using it as a general moniker. The figures in general don't really fit under much under a generalizing label except maybe realists but I advocate being historical. The goal here is an introduction with some kind of historical context. Fajia is a Han dynasty term it only makes sense in that context. It should only be discussed technically in brief for that context, even it requires multiples of critique to get it right.FourLights (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nabis → Nabis (king of Sparta) – No primary topic between this and the Nabis art group (which I expected to find at this title) by pageviews or long-term significance (Google Books for nabis gives only the artists; Scholar's a mixed bag even after ruling out authors with the name). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Birdie Wing: Golf Girls' Story → Birdie Wing – Per WP:CONCISE and other similar cases like Saekano and Oresuki. From a search, it seems that both are commonly used, with the full title being used by official sites as well as news reports and streaming sites. However, the subtitle-less name is commonly used in online discussions. There also doesn't seem to be any ambiguity or confusion with other similar subjects. However, given that the full title is relatively common anyway, along with how the subtitle seems to be an integral part of the title at least from the logo and official material, I don't really have a strong opinion either way what the title should be. This is just to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 1, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Genghis Khan → Chinggis Khan – I intend to nominate this article for FAC in the future, and would like to know if there is consensus for such a move; I have no preference, and will not !vote. Evidence for both sides can be found below.  :Background: "Genghis" is the traditional English romanisation, first adopted in the 18th century after scholars misread Persian texts. "Chinggis" has been increasingly used in recent decades because it better reflects the name's pronunciation in Mongolian. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Superman (1978 film) → Superman: The Movie – Superman: The Movie stands as the official trademark recognized by Warner Bros., affirming its legal and authoritative status for the film. This designation is prominently featured in extensive promotional materials, cementing its place as the WP:OFFICIAL title. Significantly, as the inaugural Superman film following its television and serial appearances, the title holds cultural importance, justifying its "movie" status use as the WP:COMMONNAME. Also noteworthy is the consistent reference to the movie as Superman: The Movie in all past and current home media releases, both digital and physical. This change should have been made decades ago, but with a new Superman movie releasing next year, I thought it would be best to bring this article to light now. The only counter-argument I see being brought to light is the absence of the subtitle in the movie's opening credits. There are numerous examples of the titles of Wikipedia articles of movies differing from their on-screen title. (Examples: Fast & Furious 6 is titled Furious 6 on-screen. + Garfield: The Movie is titled Garfield on-screen.) ScottSullivan01 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NHL Conference Finals → NHL conference finals – We didn't reach consensus last year, but after the month-long RM discussion at Talk:NBA conference finals, with consensus to lowercase, it seems like the issues have been pretty well hashed out. That is, none of "NBA Conference", "Conference Finals", and "NBA Conference Finals" are proper names, and most likely the same applies to "NHL Conference" and "NHL Conference Finals" not being proper names. Different leagues may have different issues, it was pointed out above, so let's hear about those and decide. Maybe we can avoid re-hashing the settled issues about what the policies and guidelines say. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Lochem bridge collapse → Nettelhorsterbrug – As many pointed out at the AfD, the current focus of the article is wrong. The text has already been improved. Kudos to all who worked on that!!! For a rename, Nettelhorst Bridge sounds better, however, not enough sources seem to support that name. So we probably should default to the long and complex Dutch name. If you beg to differ, I will not hold it against you! :-) gidonb (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 29, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza – As above. The actions taken by Israel over the last few months amount to, at very least, an attempted genocide. The number of those killed by Israel is now over 30,000 - more than a few "confirmed" genocides on the list of genocides - and Israel shows no sign of stopping their genocidal campaign against the people of Gaza. The list of war crimes is only increasing, and if things continue the way they are, it will eventually amount to a total genocide of the Palestinian people. As Wikipedians, we are not here to peddle Israeli narrative, and must show the facts for what they are. Israel has openly declared its intent to destroy Gaza, and by displacing millions of people, moving them further and further south, to then continue to bombard areas they declared as "safe" is nothing short of barbarianism. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Deliberately targeting civilians in this manner, with none of the "restraint" that they claim to be displaying, is a clear sign that they intend to kill every single person in Gaza. This is not particularly refutable, hence I did not see the move as "controversial", as [edit: it fits the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention definition of a genocide]; there is no other way to describe what is currently happening. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Edward V of England → Edward V – Background: There was a recent RM which proposed to drop the "of England" from all of the English Edwards, which ended in no consensus. However, the closer explicitly stated a separate nomination limited to Edward IV and Edward V would be more fruitful, and might be the best next step to pursue. This is that discussion. Rationale: per WP:SOVEREIGN, Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. Given that there are no other Edward IVs/Edward Vs, it is obvious that no disambiguation is needed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 28, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Kardecist spiritism → ? – This article was moved without discussion on February 23 from a longstanding title of Spiritism, which has now been turned into a dab page. Opening this discussion to clarify whether "Kardecist spiritism" or just "spiritism" is a better title. Also noting that there are 1000+ disambiguation links that were created after the page move and dab page creation. Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Stranger Among Bears → Charlie Vandergaw – I am still not sure the subject "Stranger Among Bears" is notable, but that the greater topic of Charlie Vandergaw likely is. Of the sources currently in the article, we have an Alaskan law which has nothing to do with either subject; a couple sources about Vandergaw that do not mention "Stranger Among Bears", and links to YouTube and IMDb. A search on newspapers.com turned up only reprints of a singular press release, which can also be viewed here. The only halfway decent source I could find on "Stranger Among Bears" was a review from Common Sense Media. Of the four reliable sources brought up in the AFD, three do not mention "Stranger Among Bears" at all and in my opinion do not suggest the show is notable. However, they do suggest Charlie Vandergaw is notable, so I feel it would be better to redo the article to be about Charlie Vandergraw with a section about "Stranger Among Bears". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eemian → Last Interglacial – "Eemian" is the regional European name for the Last Interglacial, and it's pretty clear looking at scholar that "Eemian" is almost exclusively used in a regional European context, rather than as a global name for this interglacial. Many papers discussing the last interglacial outside of Europe do not use Eemian at all. Last Interglacial is also more common than Eemian looking at scholar [7] [8] Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 27, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Rashtrakuta dynasty → Rashtrakuta Empire – The Rashtrakutas were an empire than a dynasty, the empire consisted of many regions, states and vassals or feudatories of different ethno-linguistical identity and their region, in modern India the states which were part of the Rashtrakuta extension were Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Madhya Pradesh and their influence over Northern India & Sri Lanka, here is an Historian based work which shows the map of Rashtrakutas in his work which is mainly written about Rashtrakutas [1] CatTheMeow (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cedric Lodge → Harvard morgue scandal – Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is "famous" but not notable, and virtually all coverage of him is about this case. Even the article is about the case, not him. If you search his name, just as many articles come up about his wife and co-defendants as him. "Harvard morgue case" would be an alternate name, although "Harvard morgue scandal" seems to be the most common phrase used in the media. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Hoysala Kingdom → Hoysala dynasty – Hoysala Kingdom sounds very inappropriate to this ruling family, kingdoms are very small in size and Hoysalas held their sway over different regions of different linguistics and people i.e. modern states of India like Tamil Nadu, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and different communities under them were Tigula, Malayala, Telugu & Marathi in North, dynasty sounds very proper to this ruling family than a kingdom CatTheMeow (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Windows Live Messenger → MSN Messenger – Ten years after its end, I would argue that "MSN Messenger" is the appropriate title as per WP:COMMONNAME ("as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources"), as it's by far the more common name used for the program despite its latter-day renaming to "Windows Live" Messenger by Microsoft. The product hit its peak while under the former, original name. Here are some examples of recent 2020s sources which use the "MSN Messenger" name [11], [12], [13], [14]. Even news sources from 2013-14, when the product got shut down and was using the "Windows Live" Messenger name, still used its old name, e.g. [15], [16], [17]. I could scarcely find any reliable sources in the last ~10 years that used the "Windows Live" moniker as the primary title for the product. Also, the predominant colloquial name of simply "MSN" is inherently tied to the "MSN Messenger" name, and the entire Windows Live branding (of which "Windows Live" Messenger was a part) has been entirely discontinued by Microsoft. Lastly, our current article already has "MSN Messenger" as the primary name in the lede. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 26, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Croatian Glagolitic → Angular Glagolitic – "Croatian Glagolitic" usually does refer to Angular Glagolitic in palaeographic usage but as such "Croatian Glagolitic" is only a nationally popular term because the script form was used by multiple ethnicities including notably the Slovenes among whom it seems to have developed, and too broad because it also encompasses non-angular cursive forms, which are not the subject of the article. Ivan (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 25, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Tanning → Tanning (leather) – This page was moved by @Drmies: with edit summary "moved page Tanning (leather) to Tanning: moving it back onto the redirect: tanning isn't just for leather, and the more general term should be the primary. @Oknazevad: later mentioned in an edit summary "... the undiscussed move is a problem because there are other things called tanning that have nothing to do with leather production". I am also also unsure that hide tanning is the primary topic for tanning, given that Sun tanning is popularly known as "tanning" and that article is much more popular [18]. My proposal is to create a disambiguation page at Tanning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 24, 2024

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Bojana (river) → Buna (river) – Buna/Bojana is a river which flows from northern Albania to the Adriatic Sea. Half of its course is entirely within Albania and in the next half, it forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. Arguments in favor of a move to Buna: *Per WP:COMMONNAME: Google Scholar: **5.940 (Bojana) **9.260 (Buna). I searched for other variants and added some additional qualifiers to remove results for the name Bojana instead of the river, but the overall ratio doesn't qualitatively change. The name Buna is used more frequently than the name Bojana. *Per WP:NCRIVER: If the section of the river that uses a particular name is much longer than other sections, then use that as the name Buna is entirely within Albania and half of its course forms the border between Albania and Montenegro. The name Buna is used for all sections of the river, while the name Bojana only for part it. *Per WP:UEGN: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name. If more than one local name exists, follow the procedure explained below under Multiple local names. The local name for over 98% of communities living along the Buna is Albanian both as an official and as a local name. Bojana is used as the official name in Montenegro, but Ulcinj municipality is an Albanian minority area. As such, both Bojana and Buna are co-official in the section which forms the border with Montenegro.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 1933 German referendum → 1933 German League of Nations withdrawal referendum – WP:NC-GAL, the naming guideline for referendums, sets out the naming format for referendums as being [date] [country name or adjectival form] [type] referendum", for example 1946 Faroese independence referendum, though it is worth pointing out some referendum articles do not have the [type] added, because it is too complex to explain in a few words or the referendums cover multiple topics. However, I do not think this is the case for these four articles (particularly not the first two listed) I had assumed the move of this article would be uncontroversial given the naming convention (and made it a short time ago), but it was was reverted because it made the article title inconsistent with others, so now using the formal RM process. I think the proposed titles of the 1933 and 1926 articles should be uncontroversial and in line with the naming guideline. I am not 100% convinced that there are not better alternatives for the 1929 and 1934 articles, which I am happy for alternatives to be suggested or simply to keep them at the existing titles if they are deemed to awkward. However, I felt that given the move of this article was reverted because the other articles hadn't been moved, it would be best to cover this in a single discussion, even if it is a little messy, so it might be best for responders to indicate whether they approve of all or merely some of the proposals (or none). Cheers, Number 57 17:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Verizon Communications → Verizon – Time to revisit this after almost six years since the last discussion. Proposal is based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP. The long form is rarely used in any fashion, and the base title Verizon already redirects here, so we already acknowledge that the primary meaning of the name is this company, not any subsidiary. The reason the article bears the current title is no longer valid. A bit of history: the current title was chosen to disambiguate the parent company from Verizon Wireless (VZW), which was also known simply as "Verizon" and was at the time a joint venture between the former Bell Atlantic and the British wireless carrier Vodafone. In fact, the name was coined for the joint venture. However, in the years since things have changed. Firstly, in 2014, Verizon (Communications) bought out Vodafone's 45% share of VZW, making it a wholly owned subsidiary. That erased any meaningful distinction between the two name wise, as it made all dealings with Verizon Wireless inherently dealings with Verizon Communications, and all VZW property Verizon Communications property. In short, any reference to Verizon at that point was a reference to the parent company directly or indirectly, and treating the plain term "Verizon" as ambiguous was just being pedantic. Then, to top it off, Verizon has since undertaken a corporate reorganization and VZW ceased to exist as a distinct subsidiary, its functions transferred to the consumer and business segments, as pointed out on that articles talk page (see the talk archives). That's why the VZW article was moved to Verizon (mobile network). Since we already recognize that people using the short form mean this company, then using the longer form for natural disambiguation becomes a case of unnecessary disambiguation when the common name of this company is simply "Verizon" and we should live the article to simpler form. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 1998 Thurston High School shooting → Thurston High School shooting – The year is not needed as the name of the school distinguishes it from other shootings and makes the event unnecessarily harder to find when searching for it. The article was only moved to its current name back in October without a move request by an account called “Corgi Stays”, which has been confirmed to be another sockpuppet account for DisuseKid/Love of Corey, an editor who had done the same thing on other school shootings articles multiple times and is now banned for using, as I previously mentioned, sockpuppet accounts. MountainDew20 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Attribution of recent climate change → Causes of climate change – A lengthy discussion on this proposal has become stuck for some time now with some editors supporting this move and others opposing it. The people who support it feel that the new title would be clearer and would be what users are looking for (NB, the current article "causes of climate change" is a redirect to this article). Content about "attribution" (i.e. to know WHY something is the cause) could be reasonably included in an article called "causes of climate change". Those opposing the move feel that the article should for now remain under this title (or be moved to "Detection and attribution of climate change" (or similar) and that it should not be mainly about the causes but rather about "scientific attribution of climate change and its effects". I hope I have summarised the discussion from the talk page correctly. Looking for uninvolved editors to help get this discussion unstuck and to move forward. I think all the editors involved so far feel that the current status quo is not good, i.e. the current version of the article is not good / there is a mismatch with the title versus its content. EMsmile (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Empire of Great Fulo → Denianke Kingdom – 'Empire of Great Fulo' is a name that was given by external observers (Europeans) to an African political unit, and not one that the Fula used themselves. In fact, contemporary Europeans seem to refer to the state more commonly as the land or empire of the Great Fulo (or some such variant) rather than an empire that is called 'Great Fulo'. Calling this state the 'Empire of Great Fulo' would be equivalent to calling the British Empire the 'Empire of Big British' or 'Empire of Queen.' While many articles and books talk about the 'Great Fulo' when quoting Portuguese sources, they generally do not refer to it as such in their own prose. Terms such as the "Denianke Kingdom' or the 'Denyankoobe' are more common. This is particularly true for Senegalese authors. Different spellings are possible, but I think any name that reflects local nomenclature is better than 'Empire of Great Fulo'. Catjacket (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pacific Aerospace → NZSkydive Ltd – 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. 161.132.241.124 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Snake (video game) → Snake (mobile game) – This article is exclusively about the Nokia mobile phone version of Snake as invented by Taneli Armanto. Having this article at Snake (video game) gives the impression that Armanto invented the entire Snake game concept, while in reality he only invented this particular version, and the Snake game itself precedes it by decades. Checking the list of incoming links reveals dozens of incoming links referring to the concept of the Snake game itself, not to Armanto's version. JIP | Talk 09:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2003 Congo air disaster → 2003 Ukrainian Cargo Airways Il-76 incident – Fails WP:COMMONNAME. While the title might seem commonly used, removing the year and just typing Congo air disaster brings us various accidents/incidents in Congo with wikipedia being the sole website mentioning the name "Congo air disaster". Even though typing 2003 Congo air disaster shows us the correct results, it also shows us other Congo plane crashes. Additionally, as already stated, wikipedia is the only website that uses the name Congo air disaster. Per WP:AVTITLE, articles on air accidents without a flight number should follow the following format: <year> <airline> <aircraft> <event>. <2003> <Ukrainian Cargo Airways> <Il-76> <Incident>. Just look at the Munich air disaster, type it in and one of the first websites you get talking about the event all have the title Munich air disaster. Type Congo air disaster and while you might get related searches, you still do get other events. For event, I'm not sure if "incident" fits the bill though it does seem like the acceptable name. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Snowy Mountains Airport → Cooma–Snowy Mountains Airport – Page was moved to this namespace by an autoconfirmed user in good faith per WP:BOLD under the rationale of WP:COMMONNAME. I disagree with this move and would like to seek WP:EDITCON for reasons stated below: *Under private ownership, this airport has been branded as "Snowy Mountains Airport", However, most sources actually cited as references in the article, both current and historic, refer to either Cooma Airport, or Cooma - Snowy Mountains Airport. Of the 14 sources currently referenced, only 2 refer to the airport exclusively as "Snowy Mountains Airport" and these are self-published by the airport operator, suggesting a rebranding for promotional reasons which may raise issues with WP:PROMO. *Although Google does return more hits for the specific search term "Snowy Mountains Airport" than either of the above, I note many of these results still preface this with "Cooma" when viewing where the term actually appears in the text, including 3 of the top 10 matches. *The Qantas booking system was using "Cooma" as the destination as of last season (although marketed as flights to the Snowy Mountains). *As a pilot who has operated to this airport, all radio calls, flight planning documents and associated navigation are referred to as "Cooma". *Disambiguation - Originally, the public airport was referred to as Cooma Airport, the Snowy Mountains was added to differentiate it from the private Cooma–Polo Flat Airport, which was historically the base for the Snowy Mountains Authority's aviation ops to a network of airstrips throughout the Snowy Mountains. Although historic, there was a period of time where Polo Flat was colloquially known as the Snowy Mountains Scheme Airport (or just "Snowy Airport" or other iterations) while the public airfield was just "Cooma" airport. Discarding booking engine type search results and considering those with actual content that is of encyclopedic interest, it is possible that many search results for "Snowy Mountains Airport" may be referring to Polo Flat or other SMA airstrips. - This is certainly the case when using search engines such as Trove. Although the change to the name was only minor, I believe that it is detrimental to the article, however it would be appropriate to add a "nativename" field or such in the infobox, or provide this clarification in the lede. Dfadden (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shrovetide → Pre-Lent – This article was originally named 'Pre-Lenten Season' and this is what it describes. It was renamed 'Shrovetide' in 2016, based on a single reference that gives an incorrect definition (Gardner 2008). Shrovetide is however only the final three days of this period: the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'The period comprising Quinquagesima Sunday and the two following days, ‘Shrove’ Monday and Tuesday'. Shrovetide is identical to Carnival, which already has its own article. The pre-Lenten period is variously called 'pre-Lent', 'pre-Lenten period', 'pre-Lenten season', 'Septuagesima—Sexagesima—Quinquagesima', 'Septuagesima', 'Gesimatide', 'weeks before Lent' and probably other things – since it isn't a proper season, it doesn't have a formal name. (Cf. 'Vorpassionszeit' in German, 'Domenica di Settuagesima' in Italian.) 'Pre-Lent' is the most descriptive and neutral name that I can find in current scholarship, but I can see arguments for some of the other labels. AndrewNJ (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). AndrewNJ (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)  :Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Professional organizing → Decluttering – The line between what a professional organizer does and what an individual can do with the same methods are blurred. Decluttering redirects here, and we do not have an article on decluttering, which is a highly popular subject in media. It therefore makes sense to expand this article with methods for decluttering, which arguably are the same for professionals and individuals alike. Professional organizers has been kept as a section Sauer202 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kurdish languages → ? – The title of this article could be either "Kurdish Language," aligning with the naming convention of other Wikipedia articles discussing "macro" languages or languages forming a dialect continuum, such as "Norwegian Language" or "Chinese Language," which are in a similar situation to Kurdish. Alternatively, we may consider simplifying it to just "Kurdish," similar to the "Arabic" Wikipedia article, thereby sidestepping any contentious debates and maintaining a neutral stance. It seems unjustified for Kurdish to be the only article labeled with "Languages" when there is no consensus on whether it comprises multiple related languages or a single language with various dialects. Kurdian (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pākehā settlers → European settlers in New Zealand –
Previous closure
result:
No consensus. See below strong, policy- and guideline-based arguments for moving to the proposed title along with fair rebuttals and almost equally strong rationales that are opposed to this page move. So there is no overall agreement either to keep the current title or to rename this article to the proposed name or any other name. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments, look for and discover new ones, and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a new title. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]
– Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, WP:COMMONALITY, and WP:CONSISTENT. First, elsewhere on Wikipedia we don't use Pākehā to refer to Europeans New Zealanders, we use European New Zealanders. As such, the proposed title is more consistent with our usage elsewhere. Second, readers from outside New Zealand will not recognize Pākehā; in accordance with WP:COMMONALITY and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, and with the general principle of making Wikipedia accessible to all readers, we should use a term that is widely used in New Zealand, and is recognizable to the broader body of readers; European settlers in New Zealand, rather than Pākehā settlers. Third, the proposed title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. This can be seen by reviewing Scholarly results since 2021: #191 sources use "Pākehā settlers" #3310 use "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand Not all results are relevant, but a manual review tells us that enough are to make the COMMONNAME obvious. Finally, MOS:TIES is overridden here by MOS:COMMONALITY, as "European settlers" is widely used in New Zealand English, as can be seen by these Google News results from the past year limited to New Zealand domains: #47 sources use "Pākehā settlers". #239 sources use "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand. Of the results for "Pākehā settlers", most are relevant, although some also use "European settlers". Of the results for "European settlers" in relation to New Zealand most are also relevant; a lower ratio than for "Pākehā settlers", but enough to establish the common name. Some true positives are excluded by the requirement that they must mention "New Zealand", which was included to limit the number of false positives, such as New Zealand sources discussing European settlers in Australia. Results that also use "Pākehā settlers" were excluded. This can be further seen by Google Trends, which shows that New Zealanders prefer to use "European settlers", and almost never use "Pākehā settlers". This doesn't only establish that the conditions for MOS:COMMONALITY to apply are met, but that the conditions for MOS:TIES to apply are not met; in New Zealand English, the most common way of referring to these people is "European settlers", not "Pākehā settlers". BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Rashtrakutas and their times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1211441651"