Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RMA)
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a discussion-link-first format and in table format. 64 discussions have been relisted.

October 8, 2024

edit
  • Benjamin Harrison (Niehaus) → Statue of Benjamin Harrison – (Discuss) – Per WP:VAMOS, which says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere)." --Another Believer (Talk) 01:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2024

edit

October 6, 2024

edit

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 5, 2024

edit

October 4, 2024

edit

October 3, 2024

edit

References

  1. ^ Stormé DeLarverie, S.V.A. Stonewall Ambassador * Jewel Box Revue * Imperial QUEENS & Kings of NY
  2. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)). — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2024

edit

October 1, 2024

edit
  • Power Four conferences → Power conferences (college football) – (Discuss) – While the "Power Five" conferences died with the old Pac-12, it's unclear and too soon to determine if this "Power Four" grouping has long-term significance in the 12-team playoff era. Reliable sources also alternately describe two tiers in the current power structure, with the B1G/SEC as "Power Two" conferences above the Big 12 (diminished by the loss of Texas and Oklahoma) and the ACC (with Florida State and others currently actively trying to break out of the conference). In the moved article, Automatic Qualifying, Power Five, Power Four, and Power Two would all be included as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES in the lead. Power conferences (college football) is a title that is inclusive of both the BCS / Power Five notable historic era that makes up much of the article and both options for the Power Four / Power Two current reality. This is supported by reliable sources:  :Washigton Post, 2023: The Power Five concept that existed for more than a decade is dead. The sport will be framed around the “Power Two” conferences and everyone else for the next decade. “Everyone else” includes a haphazardly assembled, coast-to-coast Big 12, which picked Utah, Arizona, Arizona State and former Big 12 member Colorado off the Pac-12’s carcass to compensate for losing Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Then there’s the ACC, whose East Coast members are leaning against annexing Pac-12 castaways California and Stanford. The article title Power conferences (college football) and/or Power conferences without disambiguation was supported by most participants in the recent requested move, with the closer stating While there's some suggestion that other names may be even better, there's no direct consensus on that... but there is consensus that the proposed name is preferable to the current name, so moved as specified. If people want to explore other moves in future RMs, they can go ahead. I'm doing that now. In my opinion the "(college football)" disambiguation is needed, as Power Six conferences atop the Mid-majors is a term that exists / existed in College Basketball. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balancing Rocks → Balancing rocks of Zimbabwe – (Discuss) – As far as I can tell, this term is not really a proper noun for a specific place with balancing rocks or for a specific group of balancing rocks and is not unambiguous, as there are balancing rocks in a lot of other places besides Zimbabwe. The most famous ones in Zimbabwe are apparently in or near Matobo National Park and are sometimes called the Chiremba balancing rocks or the Epworth balancing rocks, and one particular group of such rocks is called the Mother and Child Kopje and is featured on the banknotes of Zimbabwe, but this article seems to be about balancing rocks in Zimbabwe in general. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavenly Delusion (TV series) → Tengoku Daimakyo – (Discuss) – Official international title, used by Disney VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spider-Boy (Marvel Comics) → Spider-Boy – (Discuss) – (also, Spider-Boy to Spider-Boy (disambiguation)). It's clearly the main use. Even if it was created recently, the character already has a self-titled ongoing comic book and has appeared in others. Spider-Boy (Amalgam Comics) is just a one-shot comic, that will never be used again because of its tangled copyrights (it's shared by Marvel and DC, two competitors that rarely release things together; the comic was clearly never meant to last for long), and Spider Boy (novel) is just a novel of borderline notability. Cambalachero (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2011 South Sudanese independence referendum → South Sudanese independence referendum – (Discuss) – The inclusion of the year in the current title is unnecessary disambiguation because this was the only independence referendum in South Sudan’s history. There are no other referendums of this nature that require disambiguation by date. Other Wikipedia articles related to referendums generally avoid using years in the titles unless there is a need to distinguish between multiple similar events. So, the simpler title is more appropriate and aligns with Wikipedia’s naming policies, mostly WP:CONCISE. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2023 BC Port strike → 2023 British Columbia port strike – (Discuss) – When "BC" is used after a year name, it usually means "Before Christ", so the abbreviation should be expanded to avoid confusion. Also, "port" is not a proper noun, so it should be all lowercase. JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decapod → Decapod (disambiguation) – (Discuss) – 'Decapod (disambiguation)' was created for the express purpose of redirecting to 'Decapod'. However, 'Decapod' clearly has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 'Decapod' is the common name for the order Decapoda that houses all crabs, all shrimp, all prawns, all lobsters, and all crayfish. There are thousands of articles that fall under Decapoda and whose subjects can be called decapods. I've seen at this point several dozen wikilinks formatted as [[Decapoda|decapod]] because we direct to a disambig instead of a PT. At the bare minimum, even if a PT somehow isn't established, 'Decapod' would point to 'Decapod (disambiguation)', not vice-versa. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers → Ultra Street Fighter II – (Discuss) – Simpler common title and would hence follow the format also used in the articles Super Street Fighter II, Street Fighter II Turbo, and several others where the long full name isn't the article name. Sceeegt (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parsley massacre → 1937 massacre of Haitians in the Dominican Republic – (Discuss) – As stated in the article and backed up by citations, the current article title has been shown by academic research to be a misnomer. Furthermore, it is less recognizable than a descriptive title and there is no evidence that it is the WP:COMMONNAME. (Although it's hard to count, from Google Scholar results it appears that the majority of sources about this topic are using some kind of descriptive title,[33] rather than Parsley massacre.) (t · c) buidhe 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Homoleptic → Homoleptic and Heteroleptic compounds – (Discuss) – Inclusive title Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capros aper → Capros – (Discuss) – Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, "Capros" is the best title for this article, as long as disambiguation isn't required. I think this is the case – i.e., this fish is the primary topic for "Capros". Capros is currently a disambiguation page, but the only other entry there is CapROS, which is WP:DIFFCAPS. Special:PrefixIndex/Capros also shows Capros River, but that isn't even mentioned at its target. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 14:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tianjin University Georgia Tech Shenzhen Institute → Georgia Tech Shenzhen Institute, Tianjin University – (Discuss) – Revert undiscussed move to the previous, and the official English name of this institution, which is commonly used and recognized by Chinese government, media and academic databases. Tim Wu (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 13:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cristina Castro → Cristina Castro (politician) – (Discuss) – No PRIMARYTOPIC, Cristina Castro (athlete) exists with same name. Create DAB at base name. Ortizesp (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flag of Macha → Flags from Macha – (Discuss) – The current title is a bit misleading, firstly it discusses two flags, secondly "Flag of Macha" suggests that this is the official flag of that village, not a specific artifact found there. I know that the current title is technically correct, but since it's about flags, I think "Flags from Macha" would be a better option. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 13:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tangier Incident (film) → Tangier Incident – (Discuss) – Sole such main title header, thus obviating need for the parenthetical qualifier "(film)". As for the entry delineating a relatively minor historical event from nearly 120 years ago, which is not known as "Tangier incident" and which currently does not carry a hatnote pointing to the film, a hatnote to the effect — "For the Tangier Crisis of 1905–06, see First Moroccan Crisis" — would suffice atop the film's entry. If consensus approves, a lowercase header — "Tangier incident" — could be created as a redirect to First Moroccan Crisis. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 13:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gheorghe Fieraru → Gheorghe Ferariu – (Discuss) – his official name is Ferariu Ferarium (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • High Speed Rail Authority → High Speed Rail Authority (Australia) – (Discuss) – To differentiate it from any other high speed rail authorities in other countries (previous, current and future). MiasmaEternal☎ 08:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Tunnel → Chenani–Nashri Tunnel – (Discuss) – Suggest title is widely accepted (WP:COMMONNAME) by the reliable sources [34], [35], [36], [37]. If you search the current title on Google, it will display Chenani–Nashri Tunnel [38] It seems the tunnel has been renamed to Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Tunnel but that can be fixed in the lead section as "Chenani–Nashri Tunnel, Officially known as Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Tunnel". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Czech Republic → Czechia – (Discuss) – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here's my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – (Discuss) – 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)[reply]
  • Cantonese Pinyin → ILE romanization of Cantonese – (Discuss) – Per above, whose author I thank for pointing out just how poorly this article is named. I am frankly not sure about the proposed title, but it seems serviceable. If it's not ideal, better considered suggestions are encouraged. Remsense ‥ 论 03:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingdom of Jesus Christ compound standoff → Arrest of Apollo Quiboloy – (Discuss) – Not a standoff, as the cops were allowed to get in; not a siege, because this was not in a warzone. The cops' mission was to arrest Quiboloy, and that should be the name of the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

edit
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.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

edit
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ a b Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions_(alt)&oldid=1250025340"