Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 19 August 2022" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 19 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.Reply[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 19 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.Reply[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 19 August 2022

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 19 August 2022

– why Example (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).Reply[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 19 August 2022

– why Example (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

This section 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. 96 discussions have been relisted.

August 19, 2022

  • (Discuss)Edgar the PeacefulEdgar, King of England – The name Edgar the Peaceful is rarely if ever used in reliable sources, which should be the basis of article titles. I have checked the indexes of some 30 academic books on the period, and none have Edgar the Peaceful. One has Edgar Pacificus and one Edgar the Peaceable. Some show him as just "king" which is obviously not suitable as the title. Eight show him as "Edgar, king of the English": Morris, The Anglo-Saxons; Barrow ed., Myth, Rulership, Church and Charters; Scragg ed., Edgar, king of the English; Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons; Marafioti, The King's Body; Naismith, Early Medieval Britain; Roach, Kingship and Consent; Wormald, Making of English Law. Eleven show him as king of England: Winterbottom and Lapidge, The Early Lives of St Dunstan; Brooks ed., St Oswald; Crick ed., A Social History of England; Cooper, Monk-Bishops; Campbell, Anglo-Saxon State; Barker ed., St Wulfsige; Yorke, Wessex in the Early Middle Ages; Foot, Æthelstan; Hart, Danelaw; Higham and Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World; (as Eadgar) Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society. Either of these would be fine, but England is slightly more popular and simpler for readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 18, 2022

  • (Discuss)New Bermondsey railway stationSurrey Canal railway station – The station has clearly been named in Lewisham Council planning documents[1] as being renamed (as a final name) Surrey Canal. The station name has also been confirmed in a London Reconnections article,[2] so it seems silly to leave the title as New Bermondsey. Surely common sense prevails to the extent that the first bold words of the article start with Surrey Canal?? I don't see any evidence of the name continuing to remain as New Berrmondsey, so the content should - as a result - be moved to Surrey Canal (the edit of which was reverted earlier this evening). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Water rouxTangzhong – The term "tangzhong" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in recent English sources. Most of the sources cited in this article primarily use the term "tangzhong" and only mention "water roux" as an alternative. Although Google Scholar [1] returns several relevant results for "water roux," these are all from 2018 or earlier, and tangzhong has increased in popularity since then. I believe that the title "tangzhong" will be more easily recognized by readers searching for the article. Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 00:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 17, 2022

  • (Discuss)Operation Black Swan2016 recapture of El Chapo – Per MILMOS - the operation name is not not so memorable or significant here as to override the guideline: it is far from the first op to be nicknamed "Operation Black Swan", nor will it be the last, and it is not even the first such usage to appear on Google Scholar. A descriptive title including the date, type of op and the name of the infamous individual involved is far more useful and recognisable. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Donkey Kong (character)Donkey Kong – Donkey Kong as a character appears in two major franchises, Donkey Kong and Mario. The Mario franchise is way more popular than the Donkey Kong franchise, and a lot of people probably only know Donkey Kong as a character in Mario spin-off games. This is similar with the character of Yoshi, who is also a character in two major franchises, Mario and Yoshi, but he's more well known as a Mario character. I know some people will disagree, but this is just what I believe should happen. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Gold star (slang)Gold star (LGBT slang) – I think that we should specify this is LGBT slang. Collins gives other informal definitions:  : a. symbolic approval or recognition for outstanding merit or effort  :: You get the gold star for cooking such a gourmet dinner  : b. anything that represents an outstanding effort or achievement  :: Her promotion was the gold star she'd been working for Although it does not describe these as slang, I think specifying the LGBT context is necessary here to avoid confusion with these other informal uses of the term. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)COVID-19 recession2020s recession – While there have yet to be sources calling the economic downturn, it is becoming clear the recession(s) are caused by more than just the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since there's no official/common name for the economic downturn established through reliable sources, and that it has run through several years of the 2020s, the proposed title may be best at this time. If you find reliable sources that give an official/common name or call it a depression, please mention it below. 9March2019 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)2022 San Antonio trailer deaths → ? – For reasons to follow, the name should include one or more words such as migrant; human trafficking; trafficked migrants; smuggled migrants; illegally smuggled migrants; or omitting migrants for something like 2022 Texas human trafficking mass deaths. I think it would be respectful to not make this about trucks, and remember this was a collective human tragedy where illegal migrants died in an outcome of human trafficking. Before this is about trailers or lorries, it's also an article about human trafficking. The true subjects aren't represented in the redirects or article name.
    I'm sure this outcome is one they must have knowingly risked; of course the actual horrors were unknowable, but staking life and death must have been the regret. More important than what I suggest is respectful, is that there are real human stories here with high-stakes, high-risk, decisions of ultimate consequence and other human topics about societies, but not about trucks. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Rehman (Pakistani actor)Rehman (Bengali actor) – Rehman not only acted in the Pakistani films. He also acted in many Bangladeshi films. He acted Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi etc films. So the title is not suitable. Renaming to "Rehman (Bangladeshi actor)" isn’t suitable because he acted in Pakistan too and he was a Pakistani citizen. He is Bengali so the requested title will be better I think. Mehedi Abedin 23:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Jeong JinwoonJeong Jin-woon – Per WP:NCKO#Given name. In addition, the same correct Korean name formatting were already applied long ago to the Infobox's name param and the starting sentence in the lead. Also noting that per the article's history, back in 29 October 2012, it was named correctly inline with WP:NCKO. However for reasons unknown nor could find any discussions on such, on 6 March 2013, it was moved to the currently title and has remained in incorrect format since then. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Regan SmithRegan Smith (racing driver) – There are two Regan Smiths, both of which are at least somewhat major figures in their respective sports. The swimmer Regan Smith has been influential in American swimming and also has usually more views on Wikipedia than the racing driver Regan Smith. However, the racing driver Regan Smith has had a storied career in NASCAR and is now a main reporter for NASCAR on Fox. I don't think that the racing driver Regan Smith can be classified as the main article. The page "Regan Smith" should be a disambiguation page. Nascar9919 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)List of films Bill Murray was considered to appear in → ? – Ambiguous title. The intended meaning here was "films whose producers attempted to contact Bill Murray to cast him in a role, but he missed out on for one reason or another" — but as worded, the title could just as easily mean "films that Bill Murray has actually been credited with appearing in even if his appearance was questionable or dubious". So a clearer, more unambiguous name is needed. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 16, 2022

  • (Discuss)Los Angeles OpenGenesis Invitational – No evidence that "Los Angeles Open" is the common name for this tournament. No reliable golf media outlets use this name. A previous RM used the Western Open as justification for keeping the older name; however I'd argue that this is a bad example, as it was always known as some variation of "Sponsorname Western Open". This event is not known as the "Genesis Los Angeles Open", and has not been named "Los Angeles Open" since 1994. It's also been an invitational since 2020, which makes the current title particularly bad. 162 etc. (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)My Life to LiveVivre sa vie – Proposing reversal of (years-old but nonetheless) undiscussed move. My Life to Live was only the US release title. In the UK it was released as It's My Life. In both countries the film is now known and released as Vivre sa vie, by Criterion, BFI, and NYFF. Nardog (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Adelaide–Darwin railway lineTarcoola–Darwin railway line – The line to Darwin originates at Tarcoola; the link to Adelaide is run across separate railway lines. Owner/manager of the line Aurizon (and previously One Rail) refers to the line as running Tarcoola to Darwin as do official studies [4] [5] [6] and current media [7]. Going further back, the original ownership body AustralAsia Railway Corporation refers to the then-yet to be constructed line as "The railway will operate between Tarcoola, north-west of Adelaide, and Darwin in the Northern Territory, connecting to the Port of Darwin."Nick Mitchell 98 talk 12:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Muine BheagBagenalstown – "Muine Bheag" is the name favoured by officialdom, but "Bagenalstown" is undoubtedly the WP:COMMONNAME, returning over four times as many results on Google. Going by the 1975 plebiscite, it's also the town's preferred self-designation. Zacwill (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBSCollege football national championships – . Proposing move to College football national championships. This article is a historical examination of the various national championship systems in college football. Naming the article with the crufty "...in NCAA Division I FBS" needlessly complicates the title and represents a far too modern take on the subject. "National championship" with no qualifier already suggests "highest level play". #"College football national championships" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this page. #This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "College football national championships", and in fact the abbreviated article title already redirects to this article and not to a disambiguation page. #Many current "FCS" teams are featured extensively in the article. Princeton and Yale top both the "Total Championships" and "Claimed Championship" tables. They have never been FBS members. #Current FCS members are presumably still technically in the running to win these national championships! They play FBS teams other every year. Appalachian State received AP Poll votes in 2007. Hypothetical: an undefeated FCS tournament winner national champion gets a lucky win against the eventual 14–1 CFP winner in the first game of the season. That FCS team would certainly receive some national championship selections, which on this page are labelled "FBS". #The computer polls definitely rank FCS teams alongside FBS teams, and this is covered in WP:V sources. For example Rothman was featured in Sports Illustrated in 1991, ranking all 677 teams. #The primary topic for the sport is College football. NCAA football redirects there. The NCAA does not play a part in picking the champion, as detailed extensively in this article. Should it be in the title? #The NCAA was formed in 1910, it's predecessor the IAAUS formed in 1906. This article discusses 37 years of national championships prior to the formation of the NCAA. 25% of the article happened prior to the NCAA. #The "University Division" / "College Division" split did not happen until 1956. Seasons before that are simply called "19XX college football season". 56% of this article occurred in years prior to the earliest switch to "divisions" in college football. #The "Division I-A/FBS / I-AA/FCS" split occurred in 1978. 71% of the years in the article occurred prior to the "FBS" division. I was surprised not to see past discussions on this subject. This is the only one I can find, which suggested offhand: Then, on thinking about it with FBS being such a new term and the article covering the entire history of championships, perhaps it should be moved to something else: College football national championship (highest level of play) or College football national championship (NCAA Divsion 1 FBS) or College football national championship (top level)? 19 October 2009 The clear answer is College football national championships per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. . PK-WIKI (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Nepal Socialist PartySocialist Party of Nepal – नेपाल समाजवादी पार्टी remains the devnagri name of the party. This converted in English is both Nepal Socialist Party and Socialist Party of Nepal. The party has on the other hand announced the name to be Socialist Party of Nepal. Even official Twitter and Facebook handle of Dr. Baburam Bhattarai depicts the same which have millions of fan following. So the page needs to be moved. 120.89.104.44 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Information engineeringData engineering – Currently "Data engineering" redirects to "Information engineering", but nowadays "Data engineering" has become the main term in industry and academia. The "Data engineering" page has been a redirect to "Information engineering" since 2004, except once when someone added some text but it was quickly reverted. Dataflow123 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Ilinden–Preobrazhenie UprisingIlinden-Uprising – Recognizability-The uprising is known in the English speaking world as Ilinden Uprising. Encyclopedia Britannica only referrers to it by the name of Ilinden Uprising[5]. The longer term (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) is used only in Bulgarian language sources, and they use both terms. Concision-The uprising is uniquely identified by this name Ilinden and there is no need for the longer name that it now has. Precision-There is no other uprising by the name Ilinden, so there is no need for further qualification.

References

  1. ^ "Lewisham Planning Documents". planning.lewisham.gov.uk. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
  2. ^ "London Reconnections".
  3. ^ https://www.carscoops.com/2022/08/2023-dodge-hornet-has-italian-looks-and-two-powertrain-options/
  4. ^ Banks, Ethan. "Cisco Catalyst 6800: Same Game, New Name". Network Computing. Retrieved 18 August 2022.
  5. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ilinden-Uprising
GStojanov (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)1948 Palestinian exodus1948 Palestinian expulsion – the current title represents a failure of NPOV - the descriptive terminology for this event fall across a wide spectrum, ranging from exodus to expulsion to forced expulsion and on to ethnic cleansing - with 'exodus' being the favoured terminology of those trying to minimize it, and 'ethnic cleansing' that of those trying to maximize it. "Expulsion" seems like a middle ground that acknowledges the non-voluntary nature of these population movements in a way that exodus (which is borderline euphemism) fails to do, but without heaping on the opprobrium. It also wins the numbers game. "1948 Palestinian expulsion" drums up 322,000 hits to the 260,000 hits of 1948 Palestinian exodus. On Google Scholar, expulsion wins by some 38,800 hits to exodus' 31,600 hits. While "1948 Palestinian exodus" superficially appears to pop up quite a lot on Google Scholar as a set phrase, almost every mention is in association with a single academic: Dr Nets‐Zehngut - if we remove these entries, it appear very little as a set phrase. Hits for the expulsion wording actually increase to 42,400 hits with Nets‐Zehngut removed - not sure how that works. Anyway, what is clear is that there is little numerical support in the literature for the POV use of "exodus" as favoured by Yoav Gelber, Benny Morris and others, over less euphemistic middle-ground alternatives. Expulsion, on the other hand, is favoured by the likes of Nur Masalha, but also draws in academics without a stake in the conflict, such as Rosemarie Esber, as well as mainstream media usage, see here in Haaretz (making it a far more inclusive and ecumenical umbrella term), while still falling a long way shy of the far-side-of-the-spectrum terminology used by the likes of Ilan Pappé in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 15, 2022

  • (Discuss)Society of JesusJesuits – "Jesuit" is the common English name used for the order, used in public branding. For example, the website for the order (https://www.jesuits.org/) first mentions "Society of Jesus" only on the "About Page"; the use of "Society of Jesus" has similar limited use on the United Kingdom website (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/). Renaming this page to "Jesuits" would be more familiar to the general public, and be in line with the articles for other major orders such as the "Order of Friars Minor" (Franciscans) or the "Order of Preachers" (Dominican Order) –Zfish118talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC). In the renamed article, "Society of Jesus" would remain a bold faced official title in the first paragraph. –Zfish118talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)— Relisting.  –Zfish118talk 23:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Template:Northern EpirusTemplate:Greeks in Albania – Templates for minority ethnic groups follow the naming convention X people in Y country. This one uses the name "Northern Epirus", which is a nationalist/irredentist political term which was created in 1912 and doesn't describe a natural geographical region. The term is POV and doesn't cover the history of Greeks in Albania, which predates the term. If the template included just the Greeks after 1912, it would be reduced. A renaming to "Template:Greeks in Albania" is a)politically neutral (WP:NPOV) and b) historically accurate about its subject as it doesn't retrogressively include individuals under a concept which didn't exist before 1912. Ahmet Q. (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Counties of Leix and Offaly Act 1556Settlement of Laois and Offaly 1556 – The Act that was repealed in 1962 was The Settlement of Laois and Offaly; 1556 (3 & 4 Phil. & Mar.) c. 2. As per the ISB, a different Act called "The Counties of Leix and Offaly Act"; 1556 (3 & 4 Phil. & Mar.) c. 1 was repealed in 2007, but I can't seem to find any information about what this latter Act actually entailed or how it differed from the one that was repealed in 1962. Any legal people here that might know? Jacobfrid (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Seimas of the Grand Duchy of LithuaniaSejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Diet of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was called by the name adopted from Polish: sejm or in the Old Belorussian version sojm. The Lithuanian language was not in use at the time, and the word itself is much later and used to describe the parliament of modern Lithuania. A much later (mid-17th century) recorded translation of Polish 'sejm' into Lithuanian is 'Suſieimas'. The term 'sejm' is used by major Anglo-Saxon historians of ancient Lithuania: Stephen Rowell and Robert I. Frost. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Macedonian denarNorth Macedonian denar – The title of this page looks out-of-date and North Macedonia has already released coins with the new name of the country. Currency names and their abbreviations are internationally standarized by ISO 4217 as discussed above, and by looking at the up-to-date currency code reported by iso.org in different formats [here], e.g., [XLS] and [XML]. For the currency of North Macedonia, the new official name is denar, and the code remains MKD. This is not the only case where the name of the country is not part of the official name of the currency. For example, "Kwanza" of Angola, "Lek" of Albania, "Taka" of Bangladesh, and so on. In all these cases, wikipedia uses the adjective derived from the name of the country in front of the currency name for disambiguation, i.e., Angolan kwanza, Albanian Lek, and Bangladeshi Taka. A similar policy is followed by United Nations that report the currency as North Macedonia denar (as pointed out by Stevepeterson). I don't have a strong preference between North Macedonian denar (consistent with all other currencies in wikipedia) and North Macedonia denar (used by United Nations), as none of them is official, the official is simply denar. I may slightly prefer North Macedonian denar as I don't see any drawback of it. Another proposal may be to change the title to Denar (MKD) but this is inconsistent to all other wikipedia pages too. Some examples of recent links (after Prespa Agreement) from the National Bank of North Macedonia confirm that "Macedonian denar" is not used at all. The currency is called denar. Please look at: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5 Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(talk) 14:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)De Coelesti HierarchiaCelestial Hierarchy – As suggested previously, this is a page for an influential work written in Ancient Greek, most commonly referred to by its English name in Anglophone writing. There is a redirect page at this title at the moment but it has minimal useful material. AndrewNJ (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Rechargeable lithium–metal batteryRechargeable lithium-metal battery – The en dash is a hypercorrection; a regular hyphen would be correct. Articles for various other battery chemistries use an en dash to indicate that the named substances are placed on opposing electrodes, such as Nickel–metal hydride battery. However, "lithium-metal" is used here as ordinary English, with "lithium" as an attributive noun qualifying "metal". That is, here "lithium metal" is used as the negative electrode, whereas in NiMH, "nickel" (actually NiOOH) and "metal hydride" are separate substances found at opposite electrodes. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 14, 2022

  • (Discuss)Formosa (disambiguation)Formosa – Formosa is the name of several historical entities with no clear primary topic. Currently Formosa redirects to Geography of Taiwan, which is not the primary topic for what is more of a historical term than a geographical one. Note there was a recent RFD discussion where the outcome was to keep the target at the current place, but there was some support to move the dab page to the base name. Vpab15 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)John HartiganJohn Hartigan (fictional character) – There are now 4 John Hartigans, the other 3 being real people, and the Australian one quite prominent (although only just had article created). I suspect that many of the incoming links to this article would be from the template that features it. It is true that this one has the most page views at the moment, so will for the moment be the primary topic on the DAB page I am about to create, but I think it's worth discussing whether it should remain that way. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Philippine drug war → ? – "Philippine drug war" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Sources either describes this campaign as a "war on drugs" or a "drug war" (without the adjective "Philippine", and if they do add a modifier it is "Philippines' "drug war"). Its also occasionally called as "Duterte's Drug War". Also there is uncertainty on how current President Bongbong Marcos would approach this campaign so its difficult to determine the end of the "Philippine drug war" since the country has always been launching campaigns against illegal drugs even before Duterte. Though admittedly minus the notoriety of Oplan Tokhang. Marcos is unlikely to explicitly state to end the drug war and announced a policy shift (PNA) I suggest renaming this article to (but not limited to): *Philippine war on drugs (2016–2022) *War on drugs of Rodrigo Duterte (2016–2022) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Discuss)Wendy Smith-SlyWendy Sly – It's the name used in practically every reliable source, including her personal Twitter [8], her Linkedin [9], her MBE citation [10], Olympics profile [11]. It is also the name she is best known as (WP:COMMONNAME), because it is the name she was commonly known by when she was an active runner, e.g. this New York Times article after her silver medal at the 1984 Olympics [12]. So by any measure, I think "Wendy Sly" is the better title. Adpete (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13, 2022

  • (Discuss)Killing of XXXTentacionMurder of XXXTentacion – On Friday, August 12, Robert Allen, one of the four defendants in the XXXTentacion murder case, has pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.[1] The consensus previously was that the name should not be changed from “Killing of” to “Murder of” until there is a murder conviction, and now there is one. The argument against this would be that not all four defendants have been convicted, but this does not fit precedent, take Murder of George Floyd for example, where only one of the defendants was convicted for the title to be changed from “Killing” to “Murder”. After the conviction Friday, Jahseh Onfroy a.k.a. XXXTentacion, legally, was murdered. The title should now be changed to “Murder of XXXTentacion”.
TheXuitts (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12, 2022

Elapsed listings

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Conchita Wurst → ? – Tom Neuwirth presently re-directs to Conchita Wurst. The redirect should be cancelled and either this article moved to Tom Neuwirth or the section on Conchita should remain here. WP:Commonname does not apply since that refers to case (e.g. Bono) where someone is better known by another name. In this case, Conchita Wurst is a stage persona but Neuwirth also performs as himself and as another character 'Wurst'. Personas do routinely have their own article at Wikipedia (e.g. Alan Partridge) but this does not redirect all the material about the performer to that character's name (e.g. Steve Coogan). In addition, Neuwirth's pronouns are not respected with the re-direct. Neuwirth is a gay man (he/him) yet the Conchita article is about a persona whose pronouns are not clear This creates much unnecessary and confusing ambiguity around pronouns. Finally, Neuwirth is a highly successful recording artist who lives his daily life not as the persona Conchita. Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References


See also