Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 149 discussions have been relisted.

May 3, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – List of Mewar (Sisodiya)–Delhi conflicts → Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict(1326 to 1518) – This was the article's original name and it was the best it could have or specifically for this type of article where more than two dynasties are involved as the original lead suggested: "Kingdom of Mewar - Delhi Sultanate Conflict(1326 to 1518) were a series of war fought between the Kingdom of Mewar under the Sisodiya Dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate from the regime of tuqlaq dynasty to the succeeding ones". The original name shifted the coverage or focus of the war from dynastic-centric (Sisodiyas vs Tuqlaq, Sayyids, and Lodis) to Period centric(1326 to 1518), and more frankly this is the reason why it was accepted and the user who had filed previous two deletion request didn't do the same with this. Hence the article name should be changed and reinstated to its original Rawn3012 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 01:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election → Efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election – The article is flawed in a lot more ways than the title, but....To boot it doesn't even exclusively focus on republican efforts:

    * Polling strategists for both parties criticized seeing the use of polling "weaponized" to decrease faith in the entire system * He described a technique that both Democratic and Republican politicians have used to purge voters from the voter rolls

    Though, with the above being said, of course the article does predominantly focus on Republicans. Even though I personally am inclined to believe the majority of disruption efforts were perpetuated by Republicans, I'm sure somebody could find enough notable sources to create their own "Democratic party efforts ...." The title is just begging to be a NPOV warground by introducing partisan language from the very getgo. Of course, the page shouldn't be renamed exclusively because editors cannot behave themselves, but its worth bringing up. Just for precedent, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election is not "*Republican* attempts", even though obviously the attempt was perpetuated by Republicans. To respondents, I ask that you take care to ensure you don't bring your own biases into this discussion. Goodness knows I struggled to write this message in something even remotely close to NPOV. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 21:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kissufim massacre → Kissufim attack – WP:NCENPOV states that massacre should be used in titles if it is the "generally accepted word" used to refer to an event in scholarly sources, or if it's part of the WP:COMMONNAME. This is due to the POV connotations. It doesn't appear as that standard is satisfied right now nor was it satisfied at the last requested move. Specifically, since the last requested move, WP:ARBPIA5 happened and inconsistencies in article titles relating to the word "massacre" were a major part of that case. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 1, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Disappearance of Heather Elvis → Kidnapping of Heather Elvis – Since @Daniel Case (pinging so he can give his opinion) is contesting my proposed move, let's discuss this. For my part, I think the article should be titled "kidnapping", not "disappearance", because it's more accurate to the case. A court of law has determined that Heather Elvis was kidnapped by Sidney and Tammy Moorer, a conclusion which does not seem to have been seriously contested outside of the convicted persons and their lawyers. Therefore it is accurate to call it a kidnapping. Calling it a "disappearance" implies that she simply went missing and no reason was ever established, which is not the case: we know that she was kidnapped, we just don't know what they did with her afterwards (inasmuch as we can't assert it in wikivoice anyway). Admittedly there are plenty of other apparent kidnappings that are titled as "Disappearance of...", but the difference is that no convictions occurred in those cases. Not titling a page "Kidnapping of..." when the victim is simply missing is one thing; not doing so when somebody has actually been found guilty of kidnapping her, purely because what precisely they did after they kidnapped her has not been established, is another. Of course there's no guideline for titling cases where someone was found guilty of kidnapping but the victim wasn't located (indeed, the only other such cases I can think of with a wiki page are Kidnapping of Charley Ross and Kidnapping of Melissa Brannen), but I would argue that we should call it a kidnapping if a court has determined it to be one, as is the case here. It's the principle we follow in the case of a murder conviction without a body, and I don't see any compelling reason not to follow the same principle here, since it's basically the same situation only with "kidnapping" instead of "murder". --Tulzscha (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – AV receiver → Receiver system – As discussed above, instead of splitting the page into separate ones for "AV receiver" and "Stereo receiver", the choice has been made to rename the page instead and just have the different receiver types as subsections. If anyone else has a better name that the page should be renamed to, please provide it so we can rename it to that instead if everyone agrees to it. If not, then the page should be renamed to "Receiver system". LeDroider (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Use of restraints on pregnant women → Shackling of incarcerated pregnant people – I propose a name change based on these Wikipedia criteria for article titles: recognizability, naturalness, precision, and concision. First, using the word "shackling" is more recognizable because leading academic and journalistic publications---NPR, Springer, AMA, Columbia University--consistently employ the word "shackling" in their headlines. These articles are how most people would find out above this issue. Secondly, "shackling" is more precise that "use of restraints" because restraints can also include chemical restraints. Furthermore, "people" is more precise than "women" because those identifying with other genders besides women can still get pregnant. It is widely accepted that biological sex and gender are different. Many academics and medical professionals are actively pushing for the use of more gender inclusive language to honor this fact. Third, using "shackling" in place of "use of restraints" is both more natural and more concise. Using three words where one easily suffices is unnecessarily clunky and long, which goes against Wikipedia policy. Again, the frequent use of the word "shackling" in major press releases and publications is a testament to its effectiveness as a title. AudreyExplores (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 07:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Weak n-category → n-category – This is a proposal to rename the article to "n-cateogry" as well as to move the materials on a strict n-category from higher category theory to here. The reason: while there is a genuine difference, a strict n-cateogry and a strict n-weak category are both an attempt to articulate the concept of an n-cateogry. And, in general, the conceptual side should triumph against the strict mathematical definition side. That attitude is actually common in Wikipeida; when there are some variants in definitions, we don't create separate articles depending on variations. Also, discussing strict and weak versions at the same place should make it easier to discuss stuff like coherent theorems. Taku (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2025 Israel fires → 2025 Israel–West Bank fires – (proposal switched on 22:42, 02 May 2025) Fires are not limited to internationally recognized Israel, affected areas include Israel and the West Bank (Palestine)- the article currently mentions Mevo Horon, Ma'ale Adumim, and Jerusalem itself. Here are three sources used in the article which mention fires and extensive damage in Canada Park (which is fully within the occupied West Bank) i24, The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post. It is even described as one of 6 locations where it is most active by Israeli authorities (see i24 and JPost). Plus, the article currently states the starting point was "between Eshtaol and Latrun", this area includes the West Bank and the Latrun salient, so it is possible the fire started within Palestine. But, the fires are (for now) centered around Jerusalem-something which is true no matter where we or the reader draw the border. As this event is new and ongoing, I don't think it has a WP:COMMON NAME, so I think we should apply (as being applied currently) When, Where, What per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). I think keeping it "Israel" has POV implications which are best to avoid. I am open to alternatives which encompass both Israel and Palestine. Mason7512 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 30, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Quadrature (geometry) → Quadrature (mathematics) – This would revert a move done without discussion by Fgnievinski on 25 September 2023. After the move, they removed the part of the article devoted to the use of the term in integral calculus, probably because they consider unrelated the two uses of term (area conputation and integral computation). I edited recently the article, and the new version shows that the two meanings are deeply related and deserve to be explained in the same article. So, the present vesion of the article is no more restricted to geometry, and this makes the article title confusing. Also, AFAIK, the article covers presently all uses of "quadrature" in mathematics, and the proposed title is thus the most correct one. D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 1967 Oak Lawn tornado outbreak → Tornado outbreak of April 21, 1967 – Yes, this is an awfully notorious outbreak, but the majority of coverage I see using the "Oak Lawn tornado" is specifically referring to the tornado in Oak Lawn itself, not the outbreak as a whole, which is subjected to weasely phrasing a lot like more contemporary outbreaks. I've also heard it referred to as as the "Belvidere tornado outbreak". As it's clear to me at least that there is no common name, I'm proposing a move to the technical name of April 21, 1967. Departure– (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Dyas (king) → Dhaj – It is a bio page of Raja Dhaj, who was also known as Rai Diyach or Diyach. But, anyone create this page with name Dyas, which is incorrect version of Diyach. This can be confirmed with folktale Sorath Rai Diyach, which is related to this king, and in books like: Mystic Melodies: Shah Abdul Latif Bhittai by Mushtaq Ali Shah and many more. Expense7 (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 29, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – GE Transportation C44ACi → UGL Rail C44aci – Revert undiscussed move back to stable title since 2009. Already been moved twice to the GE Transportation name without discussion. Usual convention for Australian and North American locomotive articles is to use the name of the original owner or original builder, not its current owner or current builder, as a class of locomotives can be owned by multiple owners or built by multiple builders later on and it gets messy. Fork99 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – St. Peter's Basilica → Saint Peter's Basilica – The abbreviation "St." in the current title is considered to be American and Canadian English, but whenever the article isn't naming the basilica (and on a few occasions when it does) it uses British English with Oxford spelling, where the abbreviation would be "St" without a full stop. I propose spelling "Saint" out in full, as that's an area of MOS:COMMONALITY between varieties of English. It's also WP:CONSISTENT with the two other major churches in Rome whose English Wikipedia article titles use English, not Italian names: the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran and the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls. In practice we seem to have no particular naming convention for which form of "Saint"/"St."/"St" to use for churches which aren't in English-speaking countries. While we use "St." and "Saint" for some basilicas in Rome, as already noted, for St Mark's Basilica in Venice we use "St". MOS:SAINT (a guideline) says "If the word "saint" is included in an article name, the standard formula is to keep it unabbreviated except when referring to a name with typical abbreviation (e.g. St. Louis, United States)." That is followed by the section MOS:PARTSAINT more specifically dealing with church buildings, which lightly implies that "{Church building} of Saint {X}" is the default, but allows for "St" and "St." as variations. However, WP:CHURCH (an essay) rather contradicts that by saying that an abbreviated form should be used, even though it cites MOS:PARTSAINT. Standardising to "Saint" for churches without WP:TIES to a variety of English would have some slight practical advantages over abbreviated forms, because the article titles would automatically sort alphabetically in categories without the need for a sort key spelling out "Saint", and links in the body text of other articles which copy the article title with "Saint" would never break with the variety of English in which they're written. Ham II (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  Good day—RetroCosmos talk 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Scythian culture → ? – The title of the article is a bizarre Russian propaganda of a common Eurasian (Russian) cultural and historical space and is not based on authoritative sources. The Iranian tribes of the Caspian and Black Sea regions are artificially separated from Khorasan, and Altai is annexed instead. Among the dozen regions of the culture's range, one is artificially singled out - Southern Siberia. Return the article to its original title. A separate section can be devoted to the presentation of the ideas of Russian scientists, for example, as for the Chinese academic view on the evolution of synanthropes. This is not a section of Wikipedia in Russian. 46.23.173.187 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sudan Emergency – World Food Programme". WFP. Retrieved 10 May 2025. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ "IPC Sudan Country Analysis, March 2025". IPC. Retrieved 10 May 2025. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  3. ^ https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/468/0001091393
ItzyWooah (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Soviet Army → Soviet Ground Forces – As has been mentioned in an earlier talk page section, the name for this article is slightly misleading, as "Soviet Army" in Russian/Soviet military parlance refers to all the land and air services of the Soviet Armed Forces (as is made clear on Russian Wikipedia, where and refer to two different things). The Soviet Ground Forces was the official name for this force and is more accurate, since the article only refers to the land warfare service. Additionally it will be in keeping with the article for the Russian Ground Forces. Pave Paws (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Landtag Styria → Landtag of Styria – The current title of this article is grammatically incorrect when following English grammar rules. While "Landtag Styria" aligns with German conventions, English Wikipedia adheres to English grammar. Saying "Landtag Styria" is as incorrect as saying "Mayor New York City" instead of "Mayor of New York City." To omit "of", the title would need to be "Styria Landtag". Furthermore, there is no official translation that uses "Landtag Styria", which would be the only valid justification that comes to mind for adopting this unconventional form. –Tobias (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. DrKay (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel → October 7 attacks – No need for additional disambiguation (Hamas-led, Israel) in the title, it just makes it longer without adding enough benefit. Going off Google hits, "October 7 attacks" is five times more common than "October 7 Hamas attack" and almost 50 times more common than the full title. "October 7 attack" is even more common, but as there was clearly more than one attack, so the plural form is the correct title. As it has been established that this is the primary topic for October 7 attacks, this is a pretty routine request, but as there have been prior RMs, this is here and not at RMTR. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 28, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Tamil language → Modern Tamil – I propose renaming the article from "Tamil language" to "Modern Tamil" to better reflect its focus on the contemporary form of the language. The current title suggests coverage of all historical stages, while the content primarily addresses the modern phase. A more accurate title would enhance clarity and allow for the proper development of a broader article on the Tamil language in the future. DelphiLore (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Matthias Koehl → Matt Koehl – Cannot revert because the Matt Koehl redirect already has two edits. This was moved in an undiscussed move in 2016. Per WP:COMMONNAME, a clear majority of books including encyclopedias refer to him as "Matt Koehl", including goodrick-clarke, simonelli, schmaltz, kaplan, gardell, atkins, berry. Only newton and sunshine don't but they almost always do full, formal names PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 27, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 → 2nd Japan–Korea Agreement – As many of you may know, the enwiki has had some history of contention between Korean and Japanese writers, which has resulted in a prolonged debate over the naming of the series of treaties between Japan and Korea preceding the Korean annexation. In a mass renaming move, @Tenmei has renamed all of these treaties in a consistent style in terms of neutrality back in 2010.
    However, the primary rule in naming Wikipedia articles is WP:COMMONNAME, and not WP:NPOV. I am certain that almost all of the names we currently have are not comnoms frequently used in academia. Furthermore, I find names such as Japan–Korea Treaty of 1904 and Japan–Korea Agreement of August 1904 to be against Precision in WP:CRITERIA. (The 2010 discussions invoked Google's search results as evidence, which is inaccurate as Google can take specific keywords such as "Japan" and "Korea" from "Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905" and bring up further results) That being said, I suggest renaming the following articles as such: *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876 → Treaty of Kanghwa (or Ganghwa) or Japan–Korea Treaty of Amity *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1882 → Treaty of Chemulpo *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1885 → Treaty of Hanseong *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1904 → Japan–Korea Protocol (of 1904?) *Japan–Korea Agreement of August 1904 → 1st (or First) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 → 2nd (or Second) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1907 → 3rd (or Third) Japan–Korea Agreement *Japan–Korea Treaty of 1910 → Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty Rationale: *Treaty of Kanghwa (or Ganghwa) or Japan–Korea Treaty of Amity (or Peace and Friendship): sources are scarce on this one–I think Treaty of Kanghwa has a slight plurality([23], [24], [25]) but the latter is seems almost equally prevalent imo ([26]). *Treaty of Chemulpo: ([27], [28], [29], etc.) *Treaty of Hanseong: sources are scarce, but I think we may just have enough to satisfy connom.([30]) *Japan–Korea Protocol: neutral name used officially by both countries: ([31], [32]) *1st Japan–Korea Agreement, 2nd Japan–Korea Agreement, and 3rd Japan–Korea Agreement are all names which are used officially in both countries.([33]). "Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty" may be preferred over "2nd Japan–Korea Agreement" for Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905. ([34]) *Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty ([35]) Again, non-Korean or non-Japanese sources are rare on this topic, and I believe that there could be many possible candidate names for many of these articles. However, I do firmly believe a change is needed here. 00101984hjw (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 04:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 26, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Islamist insurgency in the Sahel → Sahel War – This article was started to accommodate for the expansion of AQIM and later homegrown offshoots like Ansar Dine and al-Mourabitoun in Mali and those groups' brief incursions into Niger, Algeria, and Mauritania. Since then, the conflict has become a war with jihadist groups like JNIM and ISGS being de facto governing authorities in their area. Sahel war has been used since at least 2019 (very light research done, possibly earlier than this) and is used notably by International Crisis Group and experts on the region seen here. Instead of an insurgency against several loosely-aligned jihadist hodgepodges like in Mali in 2014, JNIM now controls a good portion of Burkina Faso, parts of southern Mali, northern Benin, and western Niger, and ISGS has a foothold in western Niger and northeast Burkina. While the war is dominated between AES governments and jihadist groups, switching the name to Sahel War would accommodate for other small but notable groups involved like Dan Na Ambassagou, the FLA and predecessors, and Nigerien anti-government rebels. Jebiguess (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

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

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – 2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests → 2025 Gaza protests – Many sources indicate that these protests against Hamas are part of wider protests against the Gaza war and Gaza genocide: "Videos verified by The New York Times showed groups of Gazans in the half-ruined streets in the northern town of Beit Lahiya. Some carried more neutral signs that opposed the continuation of the war, while others chanted slogans calling for Hamas to get out. Gazans, at least publicly, tend to blame Israel for much of the death, destruction and hunger the war has brought. But at least some hold Hamas responsible, as well, for starting the conflict by leading the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, abducting 251 people to Gaza and continuing to fight rather than giving up its power in exchange for a cease-fire." – The New York Times "Videos circulated on social media this week of frustrated Palestinians protesting for an end to the war in Gaza, while others chanted anti-Hamas slogans." – The New Arab "Thousands of Palestinians marched between the wreckage of a heavily destroyed town in northern Gaza on Wednesday in the second day of anti-war protests, with many chanting against Hamas in a rare display of public anger against the militant group. The protests, which centered mainly on Gaza’s north, appeared to be aimed generally against the war, with protesters calling for an end to 17 months of deadly fighting with Israel that has made life in Gaza insufferable." – The Associated Press "In conclusion, it's difficult to state with certainty that the protests in Gaza this week were exclusively aimed against Hamas, nor can they be said to represent a general uprising against the group. Rather they reflect a broad range of opinions held among Palestinians in Gaza, including some explicitly anti-Hamas voices, but most of all, a feeling of desperation and war weariness after over a year of an Israeli military campaign directed against the enclave and yet another breakdown in a ceasefire." – Deutsche Welle "For the third consecutive day, Hassan Saad, 38, and hundreds of others took to the streets in Beit Lahiya, demanding an end to their suffering and a halt to the war on Gaza...[t]he demand for Hamas to relinquish power was not an official goal, Saad clarified, rather, the call came spontaneously from protesters." - Al-Jazeera Thus, I propose the article name be moved to "2025 Gaza protests" as it seems like these protests are not exclusively about opposition to Hamas. Rather, it seems like opposition to Hamas is part of wider protests with a broad spectrum of opinions in opposition to the Gaza war and Gaza genocide. Also, "Gaza" instead of "Gaza Strip" should be used in the title, in line with 2018–2019 Gaza border protests, 2019 Gaza economic protests, and 2023 Gaza economic protests. Geo (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Vejce ambush → ? – A recent move made me wonder whether the current title is appropriate. I was also wondering whether a descriptive title like "Ambush near Vejce" would be more appropriate. Thus it would be great to receive input. I will list some sources that use both names as proper names. Vejce ambush:
    • 1 (p. 26)
    • 2
    • 3 (p. 8)
    Vejce massacre: *1 *2 (p. 54) *3 (p. 8) StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Galactic Center → Galactic center – The previous thinly participated discussion didn't come to a consensus on this, so let's try again. Sources appear to be majority lowercase by a good margin (see n-grams), and looking through them I don't find "galactic center" referring to centers of galaxies other than our Milky Way. It's clearly a term describing exactly what the words mean, not a proper name, even if it's understood to be the center of our particular galaxy. Also, the previous closer seems to be expressing a supervote, saying "Not Moved per MOS:CELESTIALBODIES", citing a guideline that doesn't clearly apply, instead of noting the arguments made in the RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Technical University of Braunschweig → Technische Universität Braunschweig – Almost identical case to TU Berlin. *1.- The university has never officially used the name Technical University of Braunschweig. It officially states that the name in English is Technische Universität Braunschweig see here. *2.- Technical university is a misnomer/mistranslation of Technische Universität as it refers to a different type type of higher educational institution in the German system (TUs opposite to technical universities can confer all types of doctoral degrees including humanities, social sciences, law, medicine, etc). *3.- Many years ago, the university used officially the (more appropriate) translation "Braunschweig University of Technology". In 2018 the page was boldly (sic) moved from that to the current one based on a discussion in which no sufficient references were provided. *4.- Last but not least (actually, the most important point): "Technische Universität Braunschweig" is currently the most commonly used name in English language references, so this is actually the name that satisfies WP:USEENGLISH. SFBB (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Latium Adjectum → ? – On 21 July 2024, the article was moved unilaterally to "Latium Adjectum" without a formal move request or community discussion (see 2015 talk page comment), and the current title violates Wikipedia's naming conventions in both capitalization and spelling Vineviz (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lazac → Lazac, Serbia – No primary topic. The name Lazac Lokvarski (lit. 'Lazac of Lokve') is also a "Lazac", just like North Carolina is also a "Carolina" (the classical example from WP:PTM). So "Lazac" is the specific part in this case, the part people use ambiguously, hence it is subject to disambiguation. Here's a few illustrations from a quick Google search about how this toponym of Lazac works in the area: The municipality of Lokve has a news section on their website where they use the term Lazac to refer to the place covered in a news article from Novi list about Lazac Lokvarski. We can also observe how the title of the newspaper article also changes the order of words (...do Lokvarskog Lasca instead of ...do Lasca Lokvarskog), because it's assumed that you can refer to the same place with either order. Both orders refer to the subject called Lazac with an adjective referring to Lokve. Also, that article's picture seems to show the place to be signposted as just Lazac, but it's hard to read because of pixelation. I couldn't find the aforementioned article on the Novi list website, but I did find this one where Novi list writers also use it ambiguously on several occasions: ... ona se sjetila Lasca i pred pet godina ..., Tata Željko dodaje da je Lazac zakon .... These are quotes from the locals, but the editors didn't normalize them to be unambiguous, meaning this is a reasonable usage, even if ambiguous. Just in case, I searched for more from the same paper, and found another article which does the same ... Lazac Lokvarski. Iako se iz naziva jasno razaznaje kako je riječ o općini Lokve, morate priznati da je malo tko od vas, uostalom i nas, bio baš u Lascu. Translated, that actually explains the natural disambiguation of the name. The Risnjak National Park website refers to a meadow of Lazac - so a third instance of Lazac, but one that wasn't documented on Wikipedia yet - for some sort of wildlife watching. They have a map at its page which shows that Lazac meadow as well as the nearby Lazačka glavica (lit. 'the little head of Lazac'). And just in case we don't want to trust the partially crowdsourced Google Maps embed, it's easy enough to confirm these toponyms at e.g. the Croatian Mountaineering Association's website trail 1 trail 2 where they include scans of old maps confirming it. Lazac Lokvarski is about 10 kilometers to the southeast of this third Lazac, so it's probably natural that it had to be disambiguated from that. At the same time the Serbian village is quite far away from these other two, so over there they had little need to use e.g. "Lazac Kraljevački". Regardless, it's fairly clear that there's no particular benefit for the average English reader to reading only the stub about one village, and having the information about the other two usages - and possibly others, who knows - hidden from view. There's no primary topic here, they're all fairly minor topics. I will note that we're here because a procedural objection to a move was made despite the fact that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Sigh. --Joy (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Zapatista territories → Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities – After the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) were dissolved in 2023 and reorganised into the Local Autonomous Governments (GAL), there was quite a bit of debate over the scope of this article in its talk page. Discussions were had about possibly expanding the scope of this article and moving it to a different title, with various different titles thrown out, but no formalised discussion was had on that. My opinion at the time was that the scope of the article itself would need to substantially change and expand before any article move was carried out, although I proposed a broader article on "Zapatista autonomy" might be worth creating. On 19 March 2025, LaborHorizontal (talk · contribs) carried out a unilateral move of the article to "Zapatista territories" (diff). Despite the move being carried out ostensibly to expand the scope of the article, most of the article is still specifically about the MAREZ, so all that really changed was the title (creating confusion as to what this article is about). The term "Zapatista territories" also set off alarm bells in my head, due to previous issues with the use of "territory" in other article titles; I searched the term up on Google Scholar, and the term is indeed in use, but it is a largely informal term used to refer to the area controlled by the EZLN (or by Zapata's ELS), rather than any specific governance structures established there (which is what this article is about). As the scope of the article has not meaningfully changed enough to justify a move, in my mind at least, I'm proposing this be moved back to "Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities". I'd also separately propose that anything taking a broader view of the territory controlled by the EZLN be its own article, rather than subsuming this one. Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024–2025 Canadian political crisis → 2024–2025 Canadian government transition – The events leading to the change of Prime Minister from Trudeau to Carney do not qualify as a political crisis, as set out in the Wikipedia article Cabinet crisis (which is where "Political crisis" redirects). The definition there is: "A cabinet crisis, government crisis or political crisis refers to a situation where an incumbent government is unable to form or function, is toppled through an uprising, or collapses." None of those factors applied here. Although Trudeau was steadily losing political support within his own party and ultimately resigned, his government remained functioning, including through the significant political response to Trump's tariff threats. This was a transition due to loss of party support, and resulted in a smooth transition of power under the Liberal party rules and the conventions of responsible government. It was not a crisis. (Yes, Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but I think we should be internally consistent when using a phrase such as "political crisis" which is the subject of an article directly on point.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Apostasia of 1965 → July events of 1965 – I request for the title of the page "Apostasia of 1965" to be renamed "July events of 1965" or "Iouliana" (the latter is a transliteration of the Greek term "Ιουλιανά" which means "July events"). While technically, I can do it myself (I think), it is prudent to request a consensus decision, given that the topic may be controversial; it was a major polarizing campaign issue in the 1980s that may still echo today, see evidence (more can be provided) on its political nature: *

    In the general election of 1985 the PASOK government had thus plausible grounds for claiming that it had rehabilitated the historic Left and protected its interests. [...] PASOK of course emphasized Constantine Mitsotakis' 'apostasy' from Andreas' former party of the Centre Union in 1965, after the king had dismissed Yeoryios Papandreou as prime minister.
    — Philip Carabott, Thanasis Sfikas, "The Greek Civil War, Essays On A Conflict Of Exceptionalism" Routledge 2004, p 267.

    Context: These events arose from a disagreement between the popular prime minister Georgios Papandreou and the king Constantine II in July of 1965. The king hastily accepted the resignation of the former and attempted to form a government by luring defections from Papandreou's political party, as he feared that Papandreou had designs to undermine the institution of monarchy. Eventually, the king formed a government (the constitutionality of his actions is disputed) with enough defectors. The side supporting Papandreou accused the defectors of "treason" and denigrated them as "apostates." Reason: I think it is clear that the title of the page, "Apostasia of 1965," is based on the derogative term "apostates" used from one side of the conflict. Thus, it violates WP:NPOV policy because it implies the supremacy of one (political) opinion by taking a side in this conflict. The "July events of 1965" satisfies the neutrality policy and is the common term used in the literature (see below), so WP:COMMONNAME. Sources: Notable historians do not use the term "Apostasia" as the label of the events. "Royal Coup" and "Apostacy" are sometimes mentioned in how the side of Papandreou accused the other side and not as labels of the events. Even if there are such sources, they would not necessarily abide by the WP rules. I present some evidence to support my case (bold emphasis added to note the label used). *

    The July events that led to the popular prime minister's resignation were accompanied by massive demonstrations, strikes, and riots giving conservatives a painful sense of déja vu with reference to the turbulent forties.
    — John S. Koliopoulos & Thanos Veremis [el], "Modern Greece, A history since 1821", Wiley, 2009, p. 140

    *

    After much effort, the king succeeded, against a background of massive demonstrations by Papandreou's supporters, who called the July 1965 events a 'royal putsch' to match Karamanlis' 'electoral putsch' of 1961.
    — Richard Clogg, "A concise History of Greece" Cambridge University Press 2013, p. 158 (note that he uses the label of "July events" and separates it from the derogative terms used by Papandreou's side)

    *

    Under the pressure of the great political crisis of July 1965, arising out of the conflict between Papandreou and the young King Constantine, the EK did eventually split, with some 45 out of 171 deputies defecting to support the ‘apostate’ EK government of Stephanos Stephanopoulos, one of the right-wingers whose presence in the EK had always been something of an anomaly. The Iouliana, as the July 1965 crisis came to be known, was to project Georgios Papandreou’s son Andreas to the forefront of the political stage.
    — Richard Clogg, "Parties and Elections in Greece, The Search for Legitimacy" Duke University Press 1987, p. 125

    *

    The stormy consequences are known as the Iouliana (the July events).
    — David Close, "Greece since 1945" Taylor & Francis 2014, pp. 107-108 (also the subtitle is called "July events")

    *

    After Mitsotakis' defection, the characterization of the Center Union defectors as 'traitors' declined in favor of the term 'apostates'. Likewise, the July Events acquired the name of the 'Apostasy', enshrining within historical memory, not the King's precipitating act, but the decision by the Mitsotakis camp that enabled the King's political coup to prevail.
    — Draenos Stan "Andreas Papandreou, The Making of a Greek Democrat and Political Maverick", Bloomsbury Publishing 2012, p. 157

    *

    The so-called Iouliana (July Crisis) pitted the prime minister against the monarchy.
    — Antonis Liakos [el] & Nicholas Doumanis "The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 20th and Early 21st Centuries" Edinburgh University Press 2023, p. 256

    *

    King Paul died in March 1964 and was succeeded by his son, Constantine II. In the early days of his reign, while the Constitution of 1952 was still in place, another political crisis of major constitutional dimensions took place, known as the "Iouliana" — the Events of July. The popular Prime Minister George Papandreou asked that the King allow him to occupy the post of Minister for Defence as well as that of Prime Minister.
    — Philippos C. Spyropoulos, Theodore P. Fortsakis "Constitutional Law in Greece" Wolters Kluwer, 2023, p. 53

    *

    For the Civil War generation, the defeat and the subsequent state repression was a continuously repeated inexpressible trauma; for their descendants, who inherited the burden of working through it, the impossibility of transforming Iouliana into a "revolutionary crisis" and the eventual imposition of the dictatorship hampered further this very process of mourning, relapsing into melancholy.
    — Vasiliki Petsa "Memory, Revenge, and Political Violence: Two Case Studies in Greek Fiction" Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 11:1 (2017), pp. 113-134

    A.Cython (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pow-wow (folk magic) → Braucherei – Pow-wow (folk magic) should be moved to Braucherei, as it is the correct term for the folk-magic practice. Pow-wow is a cultural appropriation from Native American language for the practice that has nothing to do with Native Americans, nor did they participate in this "folk magic". Please see discussion on article talk page for more information. The discussion was unanimous that the article should be moved. There was already a redirect for Braucherei, which I blanked, but Twinkle will not let me move the Pow-wow (folk magic) article to that name, therefore assistance is needed. Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). C F A 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy → Princess Alexandra (born 1936) – I've seen Princess Alexandra be simply referred to as Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra on official royal family announcements and social media. Could it be possible that her official title was switched to simply "Princess Alexandra"? I haven't really seen her being referred to as The Hon. Lady Ogilvy except for the royal family members index and older references. This could be possible because when Princess Alice became Princess Alice, it was never really announced. EDIT: I understand the Gazette still uses her husband's title with her name, but I just also want to point out that "Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy" renders way less results on Google rather than "Princess Alexandra of Kent" and simply "Princess Alexandra"... Rexophile (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed requests

[edit]
See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Joan Aruz, Kim Benzel, Jean M. Evans, Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C. Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) [1] (2008) p. 92
  2. ^ Daniel T. Potts A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Volume 94 of Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 ISBN 1405189886 p.681
  3. ^ Aynur ÖZFIRAT (2008), THE HIGHLAND PLATEAU OF EASTERN ANATOLİA IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM BCE: MIDDLE/LATE BRONZE AGES
  4. ^ Edens, Christoper (Aug–Nov 1995). "Transcaucasia at the End of the Early Bronze Age". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 299/300 (The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia). The American Schools of Oriental Research: 60, 53–64. doi:10.2307/1357345. JSTOR 1357345. S2CID 163585471.
  5. ^ Van Arendonk, C.; Graham, W.A. (1960–2007). "Sharīf". In Bearman, P. J.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1288502936"