Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

< Wikipedia:Requested moves
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RM/CD)
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. 81 discussions have been relisted.

August 29, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Sophia Howe → Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe –

    DrKay and I have found ourselves in disagreement over the title of this article. At creation, this article was named like it currently is: Sophia Howe. Since she was a peeress suo jure (having inherited the barony from her father), I moved the article to Sophia Howe, 2nd Baroness Howe, which is generally the format for articles on peers – unless they disclaim the title, or don't use it (like for instance author Nicholas Mosley). DrKay moved it back to Sophia Howe with the comment Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator: mismatch of her maiden name and a title she inherited after her marriage. I can buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, but I find it peculiar that DrKay nevertheless kept it, while removing the title, which was correct. It seems to me that it flies in the face of his own edit summary. As I said, I totally buy that her surname wasn't Howe when she inherited the barony, so I then moved the article to Sophia Waller, 2nd Baroness Howe; Waller being her surname when she inherited the title. DrKay has now moved the article back to Sophia Howe again, with the edit summary bizarre use of unknown surname! What's bizarre?, I ask. DrKay complains the Howe wasn't her surname when she inherited the title, I move it to the surname that she had when she inherited the title, and DrKay moves it back again (never mind referring to WP:RMUM after they have done it themselves ... ). I don't know if anyone is move-warring here, but if so, it certainly isn't me. I have acted in good faith. So, what should the article title be? # Sophia Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this lastname is her maiden name. # Sophia Curzon (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 1st husband. # Sophia Curzon-Howe (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), #1 and #2 combined, which is what her son, who inherited the barony from her, chose. # Sophia Waller (with or without "2nd Baroness Howe"), this is the lastname from her 2nd husband. Vote 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, etc, with a=with "2nd Baroness Howe", and b=without the title. My vote is 4a.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pakistan National Congress → Bangladesh National Congress – There is no proof that Pakistan National Congress existed in Pakistan after Bangladesh Liberation War. The sources in the article clearly indicated that Pakistan National Congress became Bangladesh National Congress in 1971. It also participated in the 1973 Bangladeshi general election. On the other hand, Pakistan National Congress didn’t join 1977 Pakistani general election. In that sense, Bangladesh National Congress is the only successor of the Pakistan National Congress. Also, there is no proof we find that will lead us to believe that many politicians from West Pakistan were in this party, the names of the PNC politicians from the sources we find are mostly from East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh. It should be renamed to Bangladesh National Congress. However, if anyone can show us proofs stating many West Pakistani politicians were in that party then I would propose to rename it as "National Congress (1947–1975)". Mehedi Abedin 14:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ryan Whitney → Ryan Whitney (ice hockey) – Firstly, there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between Ryan Whitney and Ryan Whitney (actress) (see similar page view numbers, suggesting equal readership). Ryan Whitney used to be called Ryan Newman, which is where all the problems start. However, after three years, two failed RMs, and a unilateral move by a user, we're passed the WP:TOOSOON stage. Let's say Ryan Whitney (actress)'s WP:COMMONNAME is actually Ryan Whitney (more on that later), and we manage to agree that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC, then, we need to move the pages accordingly and create a proper disambiguation page, instead of what is now at Ryan Whitney (disambiguation).
    Next, for the case of Ryan Newman (racing driver), the page needs to be moved to Ryan Newman, since he would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Ryan Newman". We could leave a hatnote at the top so that readers looking for the former Ryan Newman, now Ryan Whitney, could find her. I don't think a Ryan Newman (disambiguation) page is necessary, but let me know. Ryan Dean Newman can stay as is, and we can leave a hatnote if need be.
    Alternate proposal: if you disagree with Ryan Whitney's WP:COMMONNAME being Ryan Whitney, I suggest moving Ryan Whitney (actress) to Ryan Whitney Newman, which is used in a fair chunk of sources and on places like her Instagram page. Ryan Newman (racing driver) is still moved to Ryan Newman, hatnotes are still left at the top, but that way we can leave Ryan Whitney (the ice hockey player) where he is, and just leave a hatnote at the top. Ryan Whitney (disambiguation) can be outright deleted. Ryan Dean Newman, no change but hatnotes where needed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sol Kyung-gu → Sul Kyung-gu – Sul Kyung-gu is the version Sul uses, as he confirmed, it is on his English passport as well, it’s the version his agency uses, the version media outlets, reporters and even streaming services use for him. A lot of websites also use this name for him, using the correct version on here can clear up confusions people might get with his name and also show respect to the actor. Sul is the version used by most official sources now so that being used on Wikipedia as well can be great help to finally clearing up misunderstandings and help people. Thank you. Do let me know if source is needed for anything. ... Ku9979 (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Wi-Fi 6 → IEEE 802.11ax – So this article was moved to the Wi-Fi 6 title in 2021, citing WP:COMMONNAME. However, all the other Wi-Fi articles (Wi-Fi 7, Wi-Fi 8, Wi-Fi 5) use the IEEE technical name, rather than the "Wi-Fi x" marketing name. Thus I suggest moving this article to IEEE 802.11ax (without the "-2021" at the end, as it's not needed - WP:CONCISE; also the later articles don't have "-year" in the title either) to be WP:CONSISTENT with all these other Wi-Fi articles that are titled under the IEEE name. I'd say No one but advanced experts in this field would be searching for this article by its IEEE number, nor know what this article is about from its IEEE number. (from the previous RM) is not much of an issue anymore, as these Wi-Fi articles all now have a neat navigational template at the top clearly showing the "Wi-Fi x" marketing designations of each IEEE WLAN standard. Also, that's what redirects are for. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Use of human shields by Hamas → Allegations that Hamas use human shields – The current title puts increasingly controversial claims in wiki voice. After 4 months more evidence, it is worth discussing this title again. Since the first two discussions there has been strong expert criticism of the IDF claim that civilian casualties are human shields, particularly by Francesca Albanese, but also by others. Even if some of the past allegations are credible or proven, the current title somewhat implies that human shield use can explain a substantial proportion of recent casualties. Adding "allegations" is the simplest and mildest thing we can do to fix the bias in the current title. "Allegation" might be a more acceptable compromise for some people who rejected "accusation", and this proposal is hopefully less confusingly phrased than previous suggestions. FourPi (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 28, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Moses J. Yellow Horse → Moses Yellowhorse – Searches of Newspapers.com for "Moses J. Yellow Horse" and "Moses J. Yellowhorse" return 21 results collectively. Baseball-Reference and SABR use "Moses Yellow Horse," Fangraphs and MLB use "Chief Yellowhorse" and Retrosheet uses "Chief Yellow Horse." (Career statistics and player information from MLB, or Baseball Reference, or Fangraphs, or Retrosheet) Whatever name we end up using, there is no need for his middle initial to be in the title of this article. The following Newspapers.com searches return the following results: *Moses Yellowhorse: 1,651 results *Chief Yellow Horse: 1,615 results *Chief Yellowhorse: 1,491 results *Moses Yellow Horse: 904 results Chief Yellowhorse and Moses Yellowhorse are roughly equally popular according to the Google Ngram Viewer (but I don't know how reliable that is because it also returns no results for "Moses Yellow Horse." I would support (and I think the data support) moving this article to Moses Yellowhorse, Chief Yellow Horse or Chief Yellowhorse. I can't see that there's a way to nominate multiple different titles though. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 27, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Magpul Industries → Magpul – The common name for this company is "Magpul" by far. There is no other similarly-named entity, and hence natural disamguation is not needed. In any case, the full name is Magpul Industries *Corporation*, and in places where the full name is used, it appears roughly as frequently as "Magpul Industries" as it does "Magpul Industries Corporation", hence there is no reason why the half-full name should be used. There could be an arguement that "Magpul" could also refer to the original product made by this company, but the company now retrospectively brands this the Original Magpul to avoid confusion, and in most cases when people refer to Magpul they are referring to the company not the product, which is only a very minor product in their current line. Elshad (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sid Eudy → Sycho Sid – Reposting on behalf of User:Rusted AutoParts, with the following rationale: "at no point was Sid ever known by his real name, so I find his being located at Eudy being confusing. I see there's prior rationale being debate over whether Sycho or Vicious was the common name. That'll probably be needed to be sorted through this discussion, but the point remains that to me, Eudy was not the common name, and is inappropriate the keep the page hosted at that location." 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bay Bridge Series → Athletics–Giants rivalry – The rivalry between the two teams will still exist in the short term (at least through 2027), though the scope of the rivalry will be zoomed out from the Bay Area (San Francisco/Oakland) to that of Northern California (San Francisco/Sacramento), being that the A's will play in West Sacramento for at least the next 3 seasons. By changing the name of the page to only include the team names, the scope of the article can better accommodate the new SF/Sacramento reality beginning next year. The Bay Bridge Series is now firmly in the past, but maybe the page move should be delayed until the two teams meet again (whether that be moving the page on the day of the next game of May 16, 2025 or before Spring Training 2025). Alternatively, maybe it's better for it to be effective immediately since the "Bay Bridge Series" is now in the past. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Bento → Bento box – We discussed this in Talk:Bento (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 August 2024 recently - it appears that in English-language usage, the phrase "bento box" is actually very popular in sources, and unambiguously identifies what seems to be more commonly known as just "bento" in Japanese usage. The term bento box already redirects here since forever, so this change would be more of a technicality, but I'm bringing it up for discussion because that would follow the previous process more properly. So, per WP:AT, this change would appear to improve recognizability, naturalness, precision. It would obviously reduce concision a bit, but it seems bearable. I'm not sure about consistency, what would be a comparable example - perhaps how we use take-out instead of to go? This move would facilitate a measurement related to the previous discussion - it appears that the term "Bento" (uppercase) is a fair bit historically and presently ambiguous, while "bento" (lowercase) is less so, but it's not clear to what extent this is so - if we complete this move, that would become easier to measure. TIA. -- Joy (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Anarchism and naturism → Anarcho-naturism – A few days ago, @Czar performed a unilateral move of this page from "anarcho-naturism" to "anarchism and naturism", giving the edit summary "no source visibly uses this hyphenation; is not the common name". (diff) This is not correct. It doesn't take long to find the use of the term "anarcho-naturism" in the sources cited in this article; within a minute I found its use in Kirwin Shaffer's book Anarchist Cuba, which is cited throughout this article. Furthermore, it does indeed appear that "anarcho-naturism" is the common name: Google Scholar results find 53 results for "anarcho-naturism";[7] compared with 11 for "anarchist naturism";[8] 6 for "libertarian naturism";[9] 2 for "naturist anarchism";[10] and only 4 for the new page name "anarchism and naturism".[11] This article certainly needs work to trim the less reliable sources and remove unverified information from it, but I don't think moving it to a different title and then leaving it as before is a good place to start. As I can't undo the request and I'm not sure this counts as an uncontroversial technical request, I'm requesting this article be moved back to "anarcho-naturism". Grnrchst (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Richeza of Denmark → Rikissa of Denmark – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. She is not a widely discussed person in English literature, but the literature that does exist either uses the Swedish Rikissa or the Danish Richizza. The current title Richeza is a Polish variant of the name, originating from her grandmother Richeza of Poland. However, I don't see any evidence that this person would be called "Richeza of Denmark" in any reliable sources. According to WP:UE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject. Here the appropriate language seems to be Swedish, since she is a Swedish Queen and more often discussed in the Swedish literature. See Google Books searches for Rikissa+Knutsson vs Richizza+Knutsson vs Richeza+Knutsson. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nicholas Bishop → Nic Bishop – There are two reasons a move makes sense. First, it seems he has more recently been credited as Nic Bishop (for at least 10 years, from what I can tell). Other pages and media refer to him as Nic Bishop. Wikipedia seems to be the outlier here. Second, there is another actor named Nicholas Bishop (who stars in Industry) and while he does not yet have a Wikipedia page, I see this has caused confusion regardless. For example, The Madness of George III mistakenly linked to this actor's page (which I have corrected). Starklinson (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 26, 2024

edit

August 25, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Twitter → X (social network) – Before reading this move request, the comments written on the move requests I opened on this article and Twitter under Elon Musk should be read. I am opening this move request for a second and final time given wbm1058's closure of the latter move request two days ago, which is well-articulated and notes that the AP Stylebook no longer requires "X, formerly known as Twitter", as mentioned by an editor here. The New York Times does not mention Twitter unless in reference to an action or statement made prior to July 2023. The strongest argument that opponents of a move have—that Twitter is the common name—is a difficult claim to substantiate, even with fallible Google Trends data. The page notice and WP:COMMONNAME defer to reliable sources. Efforts to move this article in the past were premature. In terms of the claim that the history and cultural impact of Twitter should bear weight, I note that Guaranteed Rate Field is named such, though many continue to refer to the South Side baseball field as Comiskey Park. The use of parentheses in the proposed move target is unfortunate, but Wikipedia does not always decide what products are named. If X was the original name of Twitter, this article would be named appropriately. Threads (social network) is not named P92 or Project 92 because of an aversion of parentheses. This move request should not cover the status of Twitter under Elon Musk, though discussing a page move if this article is moved would not be improper. As wbm1058 stated, "scope-changing issues are problematic with project guidelines." Consensus would have been solidified if moving Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network) had not been proposed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – H2X → AN/APS-15 – The article's lede immediately identifies that the only system discussed is the AN/APS-15. It is common practice when naming articles for devices which use the American military JETDS naming convention for the article to be like either "AN/APS-15" or including the system name and type like "AN/APS-15 H2X radar". For many examples, see Category:Military electronics of the United States. This move would make the page far easier to locate since most users will search for either AN/APS-15 or AN/APS-15 H2X radar. But I am open to ideas. Please share your thoughts — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Islamic terrorism in Europe → Jihadist terrorism in Europe – The current page title is at odds and inconsistent with the page contents. The first paragraph begins by outlining the topic as terrorism perpetrated by jihadist groups and individuals, which Europol has defined since 2015 as "jihadist terrorism". The definition section then explains the meaning of "jihadism" and the page features the "Jihadism" series template. If the topic is defined in this way by the principal body monitoring this activity, as well as in the definition section and other parts of the page, "jihadist terrorism" would seem to be the correct terminology for the topic. It is also more specific and precise than "Islamist terrorism", of which "jihadist terrorism" is a subset. "Islamic terrorism" is a generally poor term that is essentially shorthand for "Islamic extremist terrorism", but here the far better and more specific term to use is "jihadist terrorism" - hence the usage by Europol and here for practically every entry throughout this list. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 24, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Puff-puff (Akira Toriyama) → Puff-puff (Dragon Quest) – The term and associated scenes is by far the most widely known from Dragon Quest, making its original name more appropriate. The origins of its parodies in other series almost certainly stem from Dragon Quest's wide popularity in Japan as well. While Toriyama may have used it in Dragon Ball beforehand, it's just confusing to not associate it with Dragon Quest when there is no evidence it's all over his other works and the fact that it was even used in Dragon Ball first feels like more of a geeky trivia note than relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning.
    Clickstreams from the last three months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream: :clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 28  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 52 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 32  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12  :* Sloboda Boyar link 12  :* total: 56 to 3 identified destinations :clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:  :* Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 17  :* Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 16  :* Sloboda Boyar link 13  :* total: 46 to 3 identified destinations Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 23, 2024

edit
  • (Discuss) – Roar (vocalization) → Roar – Animal vocalization is the clear primary topic with the most long-term significance. Disambiguating it seems similar to if Apple was disambiguated to separate the fruit from the company. In dictionaries, the entries for 'roar' have no other definitions than animal vocalization, or topics related to making a loud sound. Other articles get more page views, but animal vocalization has more significance as a large portion of the articles listed on the current disambiguation page take their name from animal vocalization as either a metaphor or a derivative. On JSTOR, "roar" returns either results about animal vocalization or as metaphors of it. Note: A technical request for this move was contested prior to this requested move. Svampesky (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 22, 2024

edit

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.
  • (Discuss) – St Anne's Church, Liverpool (1772-1871) → St Anne's Church, Richmond – or St Anne's Church (Richmond). The date range is poorly formatted, unsourced, potentially incorrect, and inconsistent with the title convention of other churches listed at Church of St. Ann#United Kingdom. "St Anne's Church, Liverpool" is ambiguous. One cited source seems to have the most information. It seems there was an original church and then another that replaced it in 1871. "In 1865 the Liverpool Construction Act was passed on 26 May 1865. Under the terms of this act, St. Anne's Street was to be extended into Cazneau Street. To facilitate this, the Act provided for the demolition of St. Anne's Church but its terms prevented the Corporation from pulling down St. Anne's before erecting a new church. The Corporation duly built the new church of St. Anne's at the corner of St. Anne Street and Great Richmond Street and the consecration of the new building took place on 16th November 1871." The map location seems to be along what is currently known as St. Anne Street, near Richmond Row. Is this article intended to cover both buildings, or only the earlier one? It seems to be both, as none of the other articles I can find are about the newer one. The later church was closed a full century later, in 1971. The source mentioned above and another source identify the location as Richmond or Richmond Street. It refers to the church as "St. Anne's Richmond" and "St Anne (Richmond)". Another source leads to other related articles that say Dr. Richard Richmond was the name of a bishop (an unpopular one) there during 1773–80. Open to alternative suggestions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

edit
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Power Five conferences → Power Four conferences – The Pac-12 has lost all but two members following recent college football realignment, and the vast majority of reliable sources now refer to a group of "Power Four conferences" instead of "Power Five conferences". Although media usage of the term (and its reflection on the media's underlying opinion of the strength of the conferences) should be the decisive factor, it is also relevant that the Pac-12 lost its status in 2024 as an "autonomy conference", which the other four power conferences have. See the second paragraph of this old edit for a slew of sources about how the Power Four has supplanted the Power Five. Orser67 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Killing of Hae Min Lee → Murder of Hae Min Lee – I'm aware that this has been discussed before, and that the consensus was not to move the page. However, there is an argument for restoring the previous title that was not considered during the previous RM.
    WP:CONSISTENT states: To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. In this case, multiple other pages on similar topics (i.e. cases in which a murder conviction was obtained but overturned and no other perpetrator was brought to justice) use the prefix "Murder of..." rather than "Killing of...". These include Murder of Maxwell Confait, Murder of Wendy Sewell, Murder of Alison Shaughnessy, Murder of Keith Blakelock, Murder of Marie Wilks, and Murder of Linda Cook. Like in these cases, Adnan Syed's conviction has been vacated (albeit this is being reviewed) and nobody else has been found guilty of killing Hae Min Lee, so the title should be changed to be consistent with the other articles. An argument was made by @Tamzin: that There is no way to call this the "Murder of Hae Min Lee" without risking the implication that Syed's murder conviction remains valid, but as it is widely known that his conviction is not in fact valid (indeed, this is likely the reason most people have heard of the case) I don't agree that this is the case. Nobody is going to read the word "murder" in the title and construe it as a proclamation that Adnan Syed is and remains her murderer for all time: the only thing people will take away from it is that she was murdered. TRCRF22 (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) – The last time I requested this, I got the disambiguator tag wrong ('company' rather than 'train operating company'). Since its been a few months, and I am moving this to a different name this time, it should be acceptable (as in, not disruptive) to revisit it again. But anyway, similar to my previous rationale, the Midland Mainline TOC is long gone, and almost everyone searching for this is looking for the mainline, so I propose moving Midland Mainline to Midland Mainline (train operating company) then redirecting Midland Mainline to Midland Main Line. Even Google comes up with Midland Mainline first. I do get WP:SMALLDETAILS but I don't think it applies here since the primary topic is probably the mainline over the TOC. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ascalon → Ashkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name. I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names. 1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article. 2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [33], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Lille OSC → LOSC Lille – The current title is wrong in both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Firstly, the club's official name is not "Lille Olympique Sporting Club"-- that's what it used to be. Today, the club's entire official name is "LOSC Lille". "Lille OSC", the current title, is used by nobody both in common and official usage. In media, the club is often referred to as "Lille", "LOSC", and often times as "LOSC Lille". We could move the title to just "LOSC", but since the English-language "short" name for usage in articles is just "Lille", this wouldn't really work smoothly. I say we should go by the club's actual name in this specific case, which is also really commonly used in sources, only third to Lille and LOSC (which I don't believe are valid titles.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tales of the Jedi (TV series) → Star Wars: Tales – Since this move made nearly three months ago has been objected to, here is an RM. I personally don't agree with the need as consensus was reached on the matter. Never the less, this anthology series had its first installment released as (formally) Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi (commonly Tales of the Jedi) in October 2022, with it announced in April 2023 that it would get a second season (wording used by media outlets, though the quote from Filoni was "Tales of the Jedi was so fun the first time, I decided to do some more.") Subsequently, it was announced a year later in April 2024 that this second "season" was a new "installment", Star Wars: Tales of the Empire (commonly Tales of the Empire). This press release shows the use of both formal names as well as the key quote in my view (and the determination of the previous consensus) that Tales of the Empire was the second installment of the "Tales" series. Thus, an appropriate name to address this anthology series considering the formal name would be Star Wars: Tales, which provides a WP:NATURAL name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel – I believe that enough time has passed since the last RM (which proposed the simpler "7 October attacks" name and closed with consensus to retain the current title) to re-propose a title change for this article. I believe that "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this event, as seen in sources such as: * Al Jazeera: "... counter the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which saw ..." * Bloomberg: "... trapped in Gaza since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which prompted ..." * CBC: "... around the world since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel of Oct. 7 but are now ..." * CNN: "... from the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel being held ..." * Euracitiv: "... triggered by the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel in which ..." * France24: "Before the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered ..." * ISW: "... spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel was retaliation ..." * Middle East Eye: "Following the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel and subsequent ..." * NPR: "... Palestinian armed groups since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that set off the war ..." * NYTimes: "... including some who participated in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that ..." * Reuters: "... were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that precipitated ..." * Times of Israel: "... during and after the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel." * The Conversation: "... participated in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, which resulted ... " * WaPo: "Since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, restrictions have ..." Many sources simply say "7 October" or "October 7 attacks" instead of spelling out the full name, but I believe that while "7 October attacks" could be a more COMMON name, I think that it fails WP:AT#Precision in favor of "7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel." DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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&oldid=1242985067"