Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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; for example, 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 and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be 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

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

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 previous 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 a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. 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

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct method if you tried to move a page, but you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:..." or "The/This page could not be moved, for the following reason:..."

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

  • Collingwood Blues (2020–) → Collingwood Blues (move · discuss) – The qualifying bookend "(2020–)" is unnecessary. The article relates to an existing ice hockey team. Collingwood Blues (1988–2011) is for the defunct team with the same name. The target page is currently a redirect. Buffalkill (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that the current team is the primary topic. A disambiguation page at Collingwood Blues is probably the best solution. 162 etc. (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither article gets a ton of traffic, but in the last 2 months Collingwood Blues (2020–) has more than double the page views. Since the redirect currently points to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011), at least some (if not most) of the traffic to that page has to be unintentional. Buffalkill (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia have a convention about this sort of title format with a dash just before a closing parenthesis? To me it looks a bit strange. I would expect something like "... (2020–present)". I found only 28 titles like that on the entire English Wikipedia, so it must not be considered proper. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None that I know of. I agree that the "(2020 -)" qualifier looks a bit strange, as if the team is under a deathwatch. There are many examples of new(er) sports teams choosing to take the name of a historical antecedent:
Buffalkill (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the Collingwood Blues (2020–) should be considered the primary topic. As I noted above, Collingwood Blues (2020–) has more than double the number of page views in the last 2 months, and it seems intuitive that any person looking for either of the articles would make the same assumption, that an active team would have primacy over the defunct one. I don't recommend using Collingwood Blues (2020–present), as I think it's unnecessary and inconsistent with most other articles about sports teams. Buffalkill (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the number of page views I note that, until a day ago, the redirect page was automatically sending readers to Collingwood Blues (1988–2011), which suggests to me that many of the page views for the defunct team's article were misdirected. There was a significant spike in views for both articles in May 2024, which was around the time when the Collingwood Blues (2020–) were winning a national championship. Buffalkill (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

Shortcut

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|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 New name 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 30 July 2024" 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:

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)}}

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia with current1 set to Wikipedia and current2 set to Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article where the template is placed (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign the request with ~~~~, since the template does this automatically (so if you sign it yourself there will be two copies of your signature at the end of the request). Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of all pages that are included in your request except the one hosting the discussion, to call attention to the move discussion that is in progress and to suggest that all discussion for all of the pages included in the request should take place at that one hosting location.

For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is itself proposed to be moved, it is not necessary to include the |current1=Current title of page 1 for the page hosting the discussion, as its current title can be inferred automatically. Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace, in which case it is necessary to include |current1= to indicate the first article to be moved.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

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.

If a disambiguation page is in the way of a move, the request may be completed as proposing to add (disambiguation).

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 30 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 30 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 30 July 2024

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024‎ (UTC)[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 30 July 2024

– why Example (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 30 July 2024

– why Example (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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:RM relist}}, 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 appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
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. 57 discussions have been relisted.

July 30, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Zamindar → Zamindar of India – This article heading rationally seems to misleading and unconsciously biased toward the accurate Indian spectrum for the broader term Zamindar contrasting since zamindar term also implies under the wider View of broader “Universal Expedation.WP:NPOVTITLE WP:GNG and against the WP:Notability ”beside such persisting module, this Article consisting various socio ethnic group Instincts in Some of proceeding from Paragraph inclosing word such as Bhumihar, Bhramin and Rajput therefore definitely its entire relevance which posses its course of Interest only accommodate the Indian Community thus its initially whole framework seem more intermediating toward Zamindar of India Downforwiki (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Ive (group) → IVE (group) – Per MOS:TMRULES, When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. As well, under MOS:IDENTITY, living subjects of articles are entitled to exceptional stylization if they clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the same exceptional style. When read in the context of WP:BLP, Wikipedia is probably necessarily compelled to use the exceptional style in such situations. A Google News search for "ive kpop" yields a majority of sources which write the name of the group as IVE in both title and body of the news articles. This includes NME, USA Today, L'Officiel Singapore, Variety, Korea JooAng Daily, The Times of India, Spin magazine, Allkpop, NYLON, Korea JoongAng Daily, the Grammy Awards website, Billboard, Forbes India, Hindustan Times In fairness, I made note of those articles I find not observing the stylization. I also include for your convenience a link to Google results which give you an idea whether the source that article is from consistently does or does not observe the stylization; * The Korea Herald – consistently does not (Google search for "ive" site:koreaherald.com) * Buzzfeed - inconsistent (Google search for "ive" site:buzzfeed.com; see also WP:BUZZFEED) * The Korea Times - consistently IVE otherwise? (Google search for "ive" site:koreatimes.com is consistently IVE, but all almost the results I get in the first 10 pages are primarily written in Korean. Some false positives appear for user comments where they are incorrectly spelling the contraction for I have, and not discussing the group. Page 10 was an arbitrarily chosen cut-off, there was no gotcha on page 11 to make me draw that line.) Their label's official website presents it as IVE, but this could be taken with a grain of salt because it also renders the individual group members as ANYUJIN, GAEUL, REI, JANGWONYOUNG, etc. The official website for the group proper does the same, with the same caveat . Their official fanclub is about the same – IVE is never not IVE, but almost everything English is rendered in all caps. Still, there are some notable exceptions for these sites – for example, one of their EPs is always After LIKE, which is more relevant to a move request for that article, but gives you some idea of intentionality here. Note that while these official websites are not conclusive given some ambiguity with how they're rendering English overall, but in no case are they not referring to the group as IVE instead of Ive. Their social media profiles hopefully make things a bit more obvious – they are always IVE on X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Weibo all consistently render the name of the group in IVE. I say that this should make it a little bit more obvious because if you check their posts on these services, you can see they are less stringent in maintaining an ALMOST EVERYTHING IN ENGLISH IS ALL CAPS convention. In more typical posts, the IVE stylization is still prefered. Marketplaces and/or streaming services including Amazon, Apple Music, Spotify, and Tidal all observe the IVE stylization. Wikipedia is not beholden to fans on SNS or fan wikis, but they can help give some indication of the WP:COMMONNAME; users on the group-dedicated reddit and X appear to overwhelmingly observe the IVE stylization, as do users on any number of fan wikis I found; [1], [2], [3]. I could also link to an untold number of fansites which all observe the IVE stylization. Finally – at least for now – I'll also suggest it's worth looking at the Korean language edition of Wikipedia (title IVE) as well as the Japanese language edition (titled IVE (音楽グループ)). Korea and Japan receive the bulk of the group's marketing efforts. I am requesting here the same move as was done in January 2024. This isn't simply taking another bite at the apple, but making a more robust argument on the basis of aspects of MOS:TMRULES which I believe were overlooked last time – specifically, how should we interpret the almost never in TMRULES? (And does the result of that interpretation agree with WP:COMMONNAME, or come into conflict with it?) I mentioned some other considerations at the top as well. Given the subjects of the article fall under WP:BLP, we might also obliged to consider MOS:IDENTITY; When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. MOS:BIOEXCEPT may also be relevant. 122141510 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Estoile Naiant → ESTOILE NAIANT – Per MOS:TMRULES, "When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not beholden to the WP:OFFICIAL NAME, but by way of introduction, the title of both albums are 'officially' rendered in all caps as we can see on Bleep [4], the webstore of the label the artist is signed to. We can also refer to Warp Records Bandcamp for EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT. The question is, how consistent have sources been in observing this official rendering? * Album reviews or other third party write-ups about ESTOILE NAIANT which observe the all caps stylization in both title and body of their article (from those reviews aggregated to Metacritic and have links available):  :Dusted Magazine, exclaim.ca, Pitchfork, Sputnikmusic, The Line of Best Fit, Tiny Mix Tapes, MusicOMH, ResidentAdvisor * Album reviews or other third party write-ups about ESTOILE NAIANT which does not observe all caps stylization in either title or body of the article:  :Allmusic (Observed in write-up, but not in title.) I'll note as an aside that Metacritic itself does not consistently observe the stylization, and sometimes in a manner that contradicts the reviews they're citing. Compare, for example, that on their aggregate page they paraphrase Exclaim as saying Estoile Naiant works as a satisfying continuation of patten's work, albeit one that moves his sound in a sideways direction. but Exclaim itself discussed the album as ESTOILE NAIANT in both title and in body of their review. * Album review or other third party write-ups about EOLIAN INSTATE which observe the all caps stylization in both title and body of their article: ResidentAdvisor, Pitchfork (n.b. as "EOLIAN INSTATE EP"). I cannot find or load a respective Metacritic page for EOLIAN INSTATE so here have simply gone off what I could find in results. * Peripheral mention of EOLIAN INSTATE which observes the all caps stylization: Pitchfork again, discussing as EOLIAN INSTATE when reviewing a track from GLAQJO XAACSSO; The Line of Best Fit, discussing Aviary from the then-upcoming EOLIAN INSTATE; FACT Magazine, announcing patten's signing to Warp and their debut EP as EOLIAN INSTATE; Dazed as Now, after a two year recording silence, he's signed to Warp and back with the brain-meltingly good five-track EOLIAN INSTATE EP. [emphasis not mine]; Juno in both title and in body (News now arrives that patten has signed to UK institution Warp, with the first fruits of the new union being a five-track EP entitled EOLIAN INSTATE.). I think it might also be constructive to consider – if the name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, we might expect that to still be the case even on third-party streaming services and/or music stores, even if it has been a non-trivial period of time since the works were released; * Spotify; as EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT * Apple Music; as EOLIAN INSTATE - EP and ESTOILE NAIANT * Tidal; as ESTOILE NAIANT (n.b. EOLIAN INSTATE not on site) * Amazon Music; EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT * Beatport; as EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT * Boomkat; as EOLIAN INSTATE and ESTOILE NAIANT I have had limited success finding examples where the particular stylized form(s) are not observed. Discogs has ESTOILE NAIANT, but also EOLIAN INSTATE. However, per WP:DISCOGS, it not a reliable source so it can inform the discussion only so much. Having made the case the names of the works are almost never written except in a particular stylized form, I assert the articles are obliged to be moved per MOS:TMRULES. 122141510 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – World Rowing Federation → World Rowing – I believe the COMMONNAME is World Rowing, which is what they consistently use fro themselves. There are examples out there of using World Rowing Federation but I think they're rare. World Rowing is also more CONCISE. For what it's worth, World Rowing Federation is not the official name. According to their Bylaws, the official name is still FISA, but "World Rowing is the designation used operationally by FISA." In searching for references online it's tricky to separate references to World Rowing from the World Rowing Championships, but here are some recent examples: [5] [6] [7] JFHutson (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – In a Word → In a Word (disambiguation) – On Allmusic and Amazon, the band's name and the date range are not included in the title – this box set is simply called In a Word. On the cover art, the band name and date range also appear very separated from the main title, which is simply "In a Word". The band is identified by its elaborate logo on the cover art – not using plain text, and the date range is shown separately in a small difficult-to-read font. There is only one other topic on the disambiguation page, which is a non-album song by Toto released as a B-side (of "I'll Be Over You") and then later on a compilation album (Toto XX). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Peregonovka offensive → Battle of Peregonovka – Dushnilkin just unilaterally moved this article from "Battle of Peregonovka" to "Peregonovka offensive", without any prior discussion or consensus building on the matter. Their edit summary states "All sources in the article do not reflect the battle for the village, they refer to a full-scale battle in the Uman-Peregonovka area along the entire front, such a name would be correct". Now, this is very confusing, because none of the sources refer to this as an "offensive": Avrich 1971 uses the term "battle of Peregonovka" in the index and never uses the term "offensive" in sections about the Makhnovists; Darch 2020 refers to it as the "Battle of Peregonovka" and alternatively as the "Battle at Peregonovka", he never uses "Peregonovka offensive" (the only time he refers to an "offensive" in the Peregonovka chapter refers to the broader White gains in mid-to-late 1919); Footman 1961 describes Peregonovka as "one of the decisive battles of the Civil War in the south", he never refers to an "offensive" in the context of Peregonovka; Malet 1982 describes at as the "Battle of Perehonivka" (in the Ukrainian fashion), he never mentions an "offensive" in the context of Peregonovka; Shubin 2010 doesn't describe it as either a "battle" or an "offensive", he uses the term "sudden strike [...] at Peregonovka"; Skirda 2004 refers to it as the "battle of Peregonovka", even describes it as a "crucial battle", he never refers to an "offensive" in the context of Peregonovka. So none of the sources refer to it as an offensive and almost all of them describe it as a battle. I don't know what rationale there was for moving this other than naked OR, but it sure wasn't enough for a unilateral move. Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Muppies – Muslim Urban Professionals → Muppies – The current exact name, with formatting/whitespace, is an unlikely search-term. Although their website does use this in the header, they seem to use the short-form Muppies universally on the pages except that place where explaining what the term means. For conciseness and commonname, I propose renaming it to simply "Muppies". Alternately, I could live with "Muslim Urban Professionals", being its full expanded name that might be more self-defining. The article has previously been at both locations over the years, so I'm taking a discuss-not-bold route to get some further input. DMacks (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29, 2024

  • (Discuss) – STEAM fields → STEAM education – The Slate article cited in the first sentence states that STEAM is not just a collection of five fields, but a movement to integrate creative thinking and design skills into STEM education. And this is how much of the article describes it. But the first sentence defines it as a collection of five fields, and the presence of "fields" in the title reinforces that definition. I think the lede would be more consistent with the sources and with the rest of the article if we change the title to something like "STEAM education" or "STEAM movement" or just "STEAM", and change the first sentence to something like:
    STEAM education is an approach to teaching STEM subjects that incorporates artistic skills like creative thinking and design.
    Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lee Mary Manning, A Young Artist in Their 50s, Keeps Peaking
  2. ^ Lee Mary Manning • Artists • CANADA
  3. ^ Lee Mary Manning (@leemarymanning) • Instagram photos and videos
Infopetal (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide – Given the movement of Gaza genocide to that title, the current title here has become incongruously inconsistent. How can the parent of a child topic that is not couched in the language of "accusation" be couched in that language? It should be obvious than it should not. More generally, it has become apparent that the language of "accusation" is generally inappropriate. This is not only per MOS:ACCUSED (which outlines how the language of accusation is problematic in its presumptive deployment of doubt (presumably ultimately as a corollary of WP:NPOV)), but also per consistency with similar titles on similar subjects. There are many pages on the topics of presumed or suspected (but not legally ruled on) genocides -- this is in fact the majority of them -- but no other genocide topic on Wikipedia, regardless of how speculative it is, is couched as a "genocide accusation". See the search results. Likewise, the phrase "Palestinian genocide accusation" is all but unknown to scholarship, in stark contrast to "Palestinian genocide", which is a common and widely used phrase, including in titular form, such as in the 2013 The Palestinian Genocide by Israel by the eminent Francis Boyle. In the previous move discussion, I somewhat rallied support around the current title, but that was in October last year, before much of the subsequent discussion around developments in Gaza. It seemed sensible at the time, but that was then, and this is now. Events have moved on significantly since then, not least with the ICJ case and provisional measures -- and hence the Gaza genocide move. As this page covers the overarching legal and scholarly topic of Palestinian genocide, the weight of both everything that went into the Gaza genocide RM discussion, and everything that precedes it in Palestinian history, including the Nakba and all subsequent Israeli policies and actions that have been discussed as conceivably genocidal by legal and academic experts, is under consideration. Given that this page has a significantly grander scope than its child, its title cannot reasonably contain greater doubt than that of its child. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. Jerium (talk) 15:16, 28 July 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) – Untitled Jack White album → No Name (album) – I believed the safer option for naming this article was "Untitled Jack White album" due to the unique release method that did not immediately establish an official title for the album. However, it seems "No Name" is the common name for this album, as it has been widely used by fans and music journalists as well as Metacritic. More search results appear for "Jack White No Name" rather than "Jack White untitled", and the latter still yields results that include a mention of the title "No Name". Images of a forthcoming official vinyl release have also begun circulating the internet, with the liner notes confirming an official title of "No Name". My only source for this at the moment is a Reddit thread, although I will provide an update if I find a reliable secondary source reporting on this, so I will not make this the primary reason for the move at the moment as it is not a reliable source. This has been confirmed in a Stereogum article. This report and WP:COMMONNAME indicate that the article title should be changed. Aria1561 (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27, 2024

  • (Discuss) – The Black Widow (1951 film) → Black Widow (1951 film) – I've done a search of sources and I believe this article is mistitled. Sources consulted split as follows: Steve Chibnall & Brian McFarlane: The British 'B' Film (2009) (referenced in article) Uses both names. [15] The Black Widow (1951 film) (current title): Monthly Film Bulletin (1951) (referenced in article) IMDb (unreliable source, external link in article) AllMovie (reliability unknown, external link in article) BritMovie (reliability unknown, external link in article) Peter Hutchings: The A to Z of Horror Cinema (2009) [16] Robert Michael “Bobb” Cotter: The Women of Hammer Horror (2014) p.108 [17] Alan Burton & Steve Chibnall: Historical Dictionary of British Cinema (2013) p.372 [18] Black Widow (1951 film) (proposed title): Film's opening titles (image shown in article) BFI Collections Search (usually reliable, referenced in article) Michael F. Keaney: British Film Noir Guide (2015) p.19 (extensive discussion) [19] Michael Singer: Film Directors (2001) p.455 [20] Chris Fellner: The Encyclopedia of Hammer Films (2019) p.532 [21] Andrew Spicer: Historical Dictionary of Film Noir (2009) p.441 [22] Jay Robert Nash & Ralph Ross: The Motion Picture Guide (1985) p.116 [23] I think the balance is towards omitting the definite article, and the clincher is the films' own opening titles. Masato.harada (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jang Won-young → Jang Wonyoung – Per WP:COMMONNAME, She is often referred to without the hyphen, with or without her surname. This includes her company profile [24] and in the news [25][26][27]. Perhaps more importantly per WP:NCKOREAN, where there is a personal preference, Wikipedia should forgo the hyphen, and she has forgone the hyphen on her own Instagram [28]. I don't believe this would be confusing for anyone as the hyphen doesn't have a role in differentiating her name like it would for 유나 vs 윤아, so I think we should honour the name on her Instagram and company profile. I also think this applies to An Yu-jin but if this is uncontroversial I believe we can just move that one over too. Orangesclub (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Laura Trott (politician) → Laura Trott – The current Laura Trott article links to a disambiguation page whereas the former Laura Trott now goes by Laura Kenny. I see the argument above who were against the move, but if you look at it, I can't understand why Laura Trott can't simply be the main article title for this one. When you search up Laura Trott on Google (at least on my end) you get the British politician and not the cyclist since she now goes by Laura Kenny. Wouldn't this mean that that would fall under Wikipedia:COMMONNAME? I feel that having Laura Trott (politician) as the article title is a bit redundant since she's the only Laura Trott with an article and then Laura Trott article is a disambiguation page. Also, the argument above said they were opposed to the move as Laura Trott the cyclist was more accomplished as an Olympian winner, however, if that were the case, how come Laura Trott doesn't redirect to her article, but instead leads to a disambiguation page? I feel since she now goes by Laura Kenny, a simple Laura Trott (cyclist) would suffice. However, since this Laura Trott (politician) is her common name, she should become the main article Laura Trott. * Laura Trott (politician) → Laura Trott or delete --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Glima → Glíma – Rationale: # Glíma is the correct spelling in Icelandic. # There is no proper English name for glíma; glima is merely an anglicized spelling variant. (Contrast this with e.g. Ísland, which is properly called Iceland in English.) # The presence of a single diacritic mark is harmless for English-language readers. # It is standard practice in the English-language Wikipedia to retain such diacritics in Icelandic article names (e.g. Reykjavík rather than Reykjavik). # i and í are in fact different letters in Icelandic: although the latter is historically formed from the former by adding a diacritic mark, it is not merely a spelling variant, as in e.g. Spanish. I would therefore like to suggest moving this article over the existing redirect, and having glima redirect to glíma instead. Thanks, 188.96.172.204 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Pin Princess → ? – "Pin Princess" isn't normal English word order, and this stub appears to have been put together either with machine translation or efforts of a non-native English speaker. I'm not sure what this bordering-on-obscure figure's most common name in English-language sources might be (I lack a body of source material on this period and region). "Princess of Pin" seems reasonably likely, but it might really be one of her longer names, and "Prince of Pin" appears to be a title (and an earlier one) not a name anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 02:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25, 2024

July 24, 2024

  • (Discuss) – Nusantara → Nusantara (disambiguation) – When this move was nominated a year ago, the primary reason against such move was that it was too soon with the city then only in its planning stages along with doubts whether or not the city would even be completed. Now, in about a month the city would become the new capital of Indonesia, which I argue would make it the primary topic. The city also gets significantly more views than other topics with such name. Zinderboff(talk) 16:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Au Hasard Balthazar → Au hasard Balthazar – The result of the 'Requested move' discussion from August 2016, above, was to move the previous page to 'Au hasard Balthazar'. For unknown reasons, the move was made to 'Au Hasard Balthazar'. I propose a move to 'Au hasard Balthazar'. Rationale: * The film is almost invariably referred to by its French name in the English-speaking world, and is rarely translated. * The film is referred to as 'Au hasard Balthazar' by: ** French Wikipedia Au hasard Balthazar [fr] ** The article's external links to IMDb, Metacritic, James Quandt/Criterion Collection article ** Approx. half of the references ( I haven't checked all the books and magazines, and some of the links are broken) * MOS:FRENCHCAPS would specify 'Au hasard Balthazar' Note that the film's opening credits are stylised as 'au hasard bathazar', which doesn't support an argument either way. Masato.harada (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 23, 2024

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Eights Week → Summer Eights – While referred to as Eights Week in the past, the event is far more commonly known as Summer Eights today. All University, College, and town publication, including all material from the actual organisers refers to the event as 'Summer Eights', not 'Eights Week'. Additionally, as referred to by the last move request back in 2016, there are far more common results for Summer Eights than Eights Week in search engines. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. OxfordRowing (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood → Robin Hood (1922 film) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." and per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) "Common names – Sometimes, it is acceptable to use an alternative common name that is more concise or recognizable.". In all historical articles of the film I've read and most film databases, the film is known as "Robin Hood" not "Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood". The title alone makes it sound like a represetnation of acting in the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Shin Hye-sun → Shin Hae-sun – With the continuing rise in popularity of actress <Shin Hae-sun>, the spelling of her English name has been up for debate for quite some time. Since her debut in School 2013, many have spelled her name as <Shin Hye-sun>; others have spelled it as <Shin Hae-sun> (a difference in Hye or Hae). In recent years, many have pointed out that her own signature and places like her agency (YNK Entertainment under IOK Company) spelled her name with Hae, yet, many sources continued to spell it as Hye since it was the most common spelling since her debut (Hye is also a common spelling amongst other Korean celebrities like Park Shin-hye and Kim Hye-yoon, adding to its credibility at the time). Here are some other reliable sources that correctly spells her name with Hae: KoBiz, The Korean Herald, Korea JoongAng Daily, and The Korea Times. It was only until last year that the actress added her English name to her Instagram account, spelling it herself as Hae. But due to the immense commonality of Hye across the internet, there wasn't a big change in how articles/sources/new fans spelled her name. As such, I am proposing that we change the spelling of her name to Hae, rather than Hye, as to fix the misinformation that is still at large. It is only right that we respect how the actress spells her own name. Imanomynous (talk) 22:02, 22 July 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 [41], 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)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tonlé Sap → Tonlé Sap Lake – The original name before renamed after the discussion Talk:Tonlé_Sap#Rename above, due to possible confusion with the river that connect the lake and Mekong. The name "Tonlé Sap Lake" is NOT redundant at all. In that discussion user Markalexander100 stated that "Khmer and English terms aren't quite equivalent. In Khmer, as far as I can tell, there is one name- Tonle Sap- which refers to the lake and river together, while in English we differentiate them." This is not quite right because the official name of the lake in Khmer is "បឹង​ទន្លេសាប" (Boeng Tonle Sap), where បឹង/boeng means lake. So clearly they still have the word "lake" in the name, to differentiate it from the river. ទន្លេ/Tonle means river and that's its only meaning, not "Tonlé already means lake (or a very large, wide river)" as stated by user Dara above. For example, Mekong is "Tonlé Mekong", Bassac River is "Tonlé Bassac", Kong River is "Tonlé Kong". There's no known translation as Tonlé to "lake". Another similarly named geographic feature is the Boeng Tonle Chhmar (a smaller lake next to the Tonle Sap Lake). So to sum up, if we say "Tonle Sap" (without adding "Boeng") to the Khmer-speaking people, theoretically we are referring to the river (according to the meaning of the words). But then since the lake is too well-known, the term "Tonle Sap" will become ambiguous. However, as a matter of fact, they should be able to tell which one you are referring to, based on the context of the conversation. My suggestion is to rename this article to Tonlé Sap Lake, and have a separate article about the river. Two options for this separate article's name is: #Tonlé Sap (as per its literal meaning in Khmer) or, #Tonlé Sap (river) and Tonlé Sap becomes the disambiguation page. The reason for having a separate article for the river is simply because not everything about the river can be merged into the lake's article. For example, Phnom Penh, the state's capital, is located at the mouth of the river and there's probably something about the river related to Phnom Penh's urban planning that's worth writing about. And merging these into the lake's article would be inappropriate. ទន្លេតូច (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 18 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]
  • (Discuss) – Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel → Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – Gender-based violence is defined as "any type of harm that is perpetrated against a person or group of people because of their factual or perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation and/or gender identity".[1] It is not currently clear that this article deals with any such violence other than that of a sexual nature, and even then, the lede states that male Israelis were also subjected to sexual violence (which if true suggests that it was not gender-based). A previous discussion on this topic has also shown that many people do not understand what the term "gender-based violence" actually means, so whether including it in the title is usefully descriptive is quite questionable.

References

  1. ^ "What is gender-based violence? - Gender Matters". Council of Europe.
TRCRF22 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation → Nuseirat raid and rescue – Most sources are dual referencing this as a raid, attack or assault rather than just as a rescue. Guardian "Israeli attacks in central Gaza killed scores of Palestinians, many of them civilians, on Saturday amid a special forces operation to free four hostages held there, with the death toll sparking international outrage." NYT "Israeli soldiers and special operations police rescued four hostages from Gaza on Saturday amid a heavy air and ground assault",CNN "Israel’s operation to rescue four hostages took weeks of preparation and involved hundreds of personnel, its military said. But the mission began with a trail of destruction in central Gaza and ended in carnage, according to local authorities." Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
23:53, Tuesday, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1236106221"