Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#Elapsed listings

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. 119 discussions have been relisted.

July 13, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Marcus Wesson → ? – Wesson is inevitably the primary focus of media reporting, but the page would be better as an event page than a criminal biography, as the mass murder incorporated into the text, being the single deadliest of its kind in the city's history, deserves a page of its own. Seeing as the sexual abuse and cult-like structure within Wesson's family was also subject to signifcant coverage, a new title should be in vein of other criminal articles with incest such as Colt clan incest case or Fritzl case. While I'd have no problem naming two separate articles "2004 Fresno murders/Wesson family murders" and "Wesson incest case", I can't really think of a name for the single article they'll remain in should a move request be deemed appropriate. Rubintyrann (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Steven Pladl triple murder and suicide → Pladl case – The current title feels awkward and doesn't capture the entirety of the case. Steven Pladl and Rose Fusco had already gained significant national and some international attention in February 2018, prior to the murders, after their arrest on adultery charges. The new title would be more in line with other criminal incest cases such as Fritzl case or Mongelli case. Although the more descriptive "Pladl incest and murder case" would be more accurate, it might be too lengthy while "Pladl incest case" would exclude the murders that led to the most and ultimately sustained coverage. Rubintyrann (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Etisalat and → E&E& – -- I propose that the article Etisalat and be moved to E&. The current title is not the official name of the company and does not reflect the branding used by the entity following the rebranding of Etisalat to e&. The company's official name is “e&”, as reflected on their website [1], and is used by reliable secondary sources including Reuters, Bloomberg, and the company itself. The target page E& currently exists only as a redirect and can be overwritten by an admin. This move would improve clarity and accuracy in naming, aligning with current branding. Fullquarter (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cultural depictions of salamanders → Salamander (mythology)Salamander (mythology) – The current, inaccurate title is the result of a series of WP:BOLD moves done without consensus, or, apparently, even giving the article a single once-over. This article is about a separate mythical/elemental creature known as the salamander, not mythological depictions of actual salamanders. While actual salamanders may overlap somewhat, the vast majority of the article is about a hypothetical fictional animal. I don't know about you, but this does not look like any actual salamander I've ever seen. Due to the vagueness of the current title, it should be outright deleted upon the move and anything that links to it should be retargeted to either this article or the one on real-life salamanders. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 12, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Glossary of Generation Z slang → Glossary of 2020s slang – to preface, this move request was prompted by this recent YouTube Shorts video by American linguist Adam Aleksic. before watching this specific video though, I was still doubtful about this label, which I will elaborate below. I would be classified as part of generation Z and am interested in linguistics, particularly slang terms on the Internet (which I edit on Wiktionary), despite lacking any formal training. the reasoning for moving this article, as well as its associated category and navbox, plus its related articles, is that, while the term "generation Z slang" is popular in usage, it is imprecise in its definition and inconsistent. this term has been used to describe the language across three decades, bleeding into both older and younger generations, as the concept of a "generation" is inherently imprecise. as Aleksic notes, it is serves more as a buzzword. taking a look at its navbox and category, it covers many terms from before many of the generation was either born or properly grown up (anything from 2000s, early 2010s) or includes terms that were not coined by the generation (gyatt, any incel slang). while I have not checked every single one, many of the terms listed in the glossary lack any reliable sources claiming that they are either specific to, coined by or popularised by gen Z. the label of "generation Z slang" among the given sources is mostly used by newspapers (as Aleksic notes, taken from influencers). for scientific papers using the label, it refers to the language used by members of gen Z, but not necessarily limited to them. dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com, tend to not use the label, favoring to instead describe the timespan in which the slang terms emerged and were used. I suppose is due to the difficulties of studying the trends of a whole generation while filtering for the often unknown ages of the anonymous users in a large corpus. the growth of a term among a specific age group during a specific timespan is only broadly correlated. similarly, until the creation of this article, there were other categories for slang over time, but these were labelled by the decade in which they were coined or popularised. for these reasons, I request that the list be recategorised into the corresponding time periods (geneneration Z slang is split into "2000s slang", "2010s slang", "2020s slang", etc.; the navbox may grow in scope and to, for example, "slang of the 21st century"; the categories, made redundant, should be deleted). Juwan (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis → IUPUIIUPUI – IUPUI had three long-form names over the course of its existence: Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis (with the word "at," 1969-1992), Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (official form, 1992-2024), and Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (most common form used on official publications, without the dash, 1992-2024). Regarding naming conventions, College and university article advice makes two relevant statements: (1) "This section is a complement to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not a replacement. Always consider the Wikipedia conventions first when naming a page." (It follows deeper below.) (2) "Never use abbreviations or acronyms in titles unless the institution you are naming is almost exclusively known only by including such terms and is widely used in that form. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) for more information." According to Acronyms in page titles, "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." Acronyms are usually avoided for disambiguation purposes, but I've never seen anything else called "IUPUI." I worked for IUPUI University Libraries in the late 1990s, and I created IUPUI's Library of Congress name heading within the Library of Congress's Program for Cooperative Cataloging, which is "IUPUI (Campus)." I did that after systematically surveying the presentation of IUPUI's name on its publications throughout its existence to that date, namely 1999. Given that IUPUI had one long-form name for about 13 years and two other long-form names for 32 years, the abbreviation "IUPUI" is by far and away the most common name used both by the organization itself and outsiders, and the long form virtually always appeared with the abbreviation. Therefore, both the general rule and the specific rule apply. IUPUI's article title should follow the example of NASA and be "IUPUI." Waering (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – 2018 Hamburg stabbing attack → 2018 Jungfernstieg double murder – Right now, the title is misleading. Other articles titled "[place] stabbings" and particularly "[place] stabbing attack" are about mass stabbings, whether terrorist or amok violence. The article is about a case of intimate partner violence where the perpetrator killed his ex-girlfriend and their daughter in a public place without attacking anyone else. The motivation was also established as vengeance during the trial, rendering the speculation in the lead outdated. In fact, the focus on the perpetrator's asylum status, while probably worth mentioning, are overstated as a relevant factor in the murders and later coverage focuses more on domestic violence and femicide. Since the surname of the victims was never officially released, the usually preferred "Murder of..." is probably not ideal in this instance. The nominated title is the WP:COMMONNAME used by German media (English coverage was minimal and limited to immediate reports) to refer to the murders during the trial of the perpetrator and subsequent mention. Rubintyrann (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – A Guy Walks Into a Bar (song) → A Guy Walks Into a BarA Guy Walks Into a Bar – The last RM was all over the place, with two supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I'm surprised it wasn't closed as no consensus or at least relisted, and IMO it should be reassessed. This is the only work with the exact name "A Guy Walks Into a Bar" and should be the primary topic of that form of the exact phrase "A Guy Walks Into a Bar": * The NCIS episode is titled "A Man Walks Into a Bar..." with "man" instead of "guy", and an ellipsis at the end. * The Justified episode does not have the leading "A". * The Mini Mansions work does not have the leading "A", and also has an ellipsis at the end. Therefore, the Tyler Farr song is the only work with the exact title "A Guy Walks Into a Bar", and a hatnote to bar joke is sufficient. Anything else for the song is WP:OVERPRECISION, and I am not convinced of the arguments to the contrary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Shriram Lagoo → Shreeram LagooShreeram Lagoo – This was first moved [2] by @NAKHISM with the rationale "Misspelled: disambiguation needed". That was reverted [3] by @Rotideypoc41352, apparently after an IP request at RM/TR, with the intention of opening an RM. It seems this didn't happen, and this move has again been requested by an IP at RM/TR with the rationale "The name of his spelling is officially Shreeram and not Shriram. You can check the spelling when his name is shown in the film credits". I have no opinion in this matter, but am opening an RM on procedural grounds so that editors, including IPs, on both sides of this debate can discuss their reasoning and resolve the issue. Toadspike [Talk] 13:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 16:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Superman (1978 film) → Superman: The MovieSuperman: The Movie – I propose moving this article to Superman: The Movie for the following reasons: * All original Warner Bros. posters, trailers, home media, and film reels used "Superman: The Movie" globally in 1978 to distinguish it from TV serials. This was not a retroactive subtitle but the actively marketed and distributed title at release, aligning with MOS:FILM guidance when ambiguity requires clarification. * "Superman: The Movie" is the name used unanimously on all home media releases, both physical (VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, 4K) and digital platforms. Warner Bros. also archives and stores the original film negative under "Superman: The Movie," confirming this as the consistent, official naming in distribution and archival contexts. This widespread and consistent usage in reliable, authoritative sources demonstrates verifiable, recognizable usage under WP:COMMONNAME. * Per WP:TITLE and WP:PRECISE, this move removes the cumbersome "(1978 film)" disambiguator, providing a clear, natural title aligned with the marketed identity of the film while avoiding confusion with the character or franchise. * Counterpoint: While the onscreen title is "Superman," Wikipedia article titles do not always mirror the onscreen title, including TWO Superman movies already. Examples include: ** Superman and the Mole Men, which uses the onscreen title “Superman and the Mole-Men” ** Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, which uses the onscreen title “Superman II” ** Dune (2021 film), which has the onscreen title "Dune: Part One" ** It (2017 film), which uses the onscreen title “It Chapter One” ** Wicked (2024 film), which uses the onscreen title “Wicked: Part I” ** School of Rock, which uses the onscreen title “The School of Rock” (also the title in the billing block) ** The Irishman, which uses the onscreen title “I Heard You Paint Houses” ** Drive-Away Dolls, which uses the onscreen title “Drive-Away Dykes” ** Fast & Furious 6, which uses the onscreen title “Furious 6” ** Tron: Legacy, which uses the onscreen title “Tron” All the above which help show onscreen title is not a good argument. WP:NCFILM states “Be aware that it is also common for films to use a slightly modified title onscreen.” Moving to Superman: The Movie aligns with the film’s marketed and consistently used identity, improves clarity and navigation for readers, and aligns with MOS:FILM, WP:TITLE, and WP:COMMONNAME, while maintaining accuracy by noting the onscreen title in the lead. Thank you. SuperFunHouse1 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Cancún → CancunCancun – In 2021 there was an attempt to do this. At the time, people argued that since Zürich wasn't changed to Zurich, Cancún shouldn't be changed either. Now, Zürich is listed under its common English name, Zurich. At the time people were cherrypicking the subsection of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English-language sources), "WP:DIACRITICS", selectively using the phrases "The use of modified letters in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged" and "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters" as a reason not to move the page, yet ommiting the accompanying phrases, "when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" and "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources", respectively. Google Ngrams shows that "Cancun" has always been the common name in English. As stated above, the city's tourism agency ommits the accent in the English version of the website (in the same way Celine Dion's website does it in English vs. French). Spanish is not an official language in Mexico, and insisting that the accent is required merely for "respect for other languages" would support the argument for changing "Mexico" to "México", since that is the country's de facto colloquial name in Spanish. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Jarvis Johnson → Jarvis Johnson (politician) – I do not believe there is a primary topic for the name Jarvis Johnson on Wikipedia. While the YouTuber is currently getting more daily pageviews and daily average pageviews, there have been spikes in views in both pages based on current events. The politician's page rapidly spiked in views after U.S. representative Sylvester Turner's death in March. There were smaller spikes at the YouTuber's page on May 1 and July 1 of this year - not sure what the causes of those were. Per WikiNav, about 20% of outbound clicks from the politician's page are going to the YouTuber. I wouldn't mind if a consensus forms that the YouTuber is the primary topic, but I see any possible concerns about recentism and believe that the best course of action would be a disambiguation page. wizzito | say hello! 18:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 08:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Giovanni Matteo Mario → ? – The article lead starts with Giovanni Matteo De Candia,[1] also known as Mario, fairly consistently uses just Mario in the text, and notes: the budding singer adopted the mononym Mario as his stage name when he made his debut on 30 November 1838.[6] Sometimes, however, he is referred to in print by the fuller appellation of "Giovanni Mario", and he is also called "Mario de Candia". (That text seems to have been in the article for over fifteen years.) So this title "Giovanni Matteo Mario" isn't actually common, then? Here's a relevant Google Books Ngrams, a graph of book references to these names. The name we have in the lead isn't even detected. At the same time, the 19th century spike in the number of references to "Mario" can probably be attributed to this person. That element of the graph alone is large enough that we have to remove it in order to see the rest. If we look at more variants, like this or like this, it looks like at the time there's a lot of references to Signor Mario, too, as well as further mononymous references to Mario and other contemporary artists. The second name Matteo doesn't seem to be commonly used in comparison. So, maybe Mario (opera singer)? Mario (tenor) already redirects here, but was moved in 2011. I came across this incongruity while researching at Talk:Mario. Mario (singer) is already taken - maybe that needs to be disambiguated, too. Joy (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – PC World → PCWorldPCWorld – I propose renaming PC World to PCWorld to reflect the magazine's current official stylization and branding. The website and publication now consistently use "PCWorld" as a single word. === Rationale === * The official site is branded as PCWorld (see https://www.pcworld.com). * Most modern references use the one-word version. * It aligns with Wikipedia's policy on using the most commonly recognizable name (WP:COMMONNAME). Icaldonta (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Achilles' heel → Achilles heelAchilles heel – While both of these variants are quite close in frequency per Google Ngrams, the current title should be avoided because it contradicts MOS:'s:

    For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, the US's partners, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).

    ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – The Highwaymen (country supergroup) → The HighwaymenThe Highwaymen – This page has about 1200 views a day, while no other subject called "Highwaymen" or "The Highwaymen" comes even remotely close to that. Even the next-most viewed work of that name, the 2019 film, is barely half of that even with recency bias putting its thumb on the scale. Just entering "The Highwaymen" on Google without any additional words turns up almost exclusively content about the supergroup. Given the vast number of inbound links and extremely high page views (no doubt owing to the high notability of all four members), I think this is by far the most notable subject to have the exact name "The Highwaymen" and should therefore be the primary topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Kernicterus → Bilirubin Encephalopathy – kernicterus is the Chronic form of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. There is also an Acute Bilirubin Encephalopathy (ABE) which takes place before the chronic phase and it is not Kernicterus. We can not have the acute phase on an article purly based on its chronic phase, but with a title change there wont be any confusions. This way the article can be written for both phases with a lot more information, but if we keep it as Kernicterus then there needs to be another article for its Acute phase which does not make sense. This short article explains my reasoning. Also as per WP:COMMONNAME, results on National Library of Medicine shows Bilirubin Encephalopathy close to 30,000, and Kernicterus shows 5500. That is widely because Kernicterus is the specific type of Bilirubin Encephalopathy. DrTheHistorian✎ 23:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 11, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge collision → Cuauhtémoc–Brooklyn Bridge crash – Follow-up to resolve lingering question from the last RM as to whether crash, collision, or some other noun is the best descriptor for this incident. Crash is my top choice and I will present the others in rough order of preference from the prior RM; note that I was involved in this lengthy discussion and may miss details and nuanced arguments. I think collision is reasonable but I appreciate the objections raised. I would not use the other terms. # crash‍: This appeared to be the most common noun used at the time of the last RM and in the initial wave of coverage. This term is widely used in reliable sources and is accessible to a general audience. It satisfies the naming WP:CRITERIA well: it is certainly recognizable, natural, precise, and concise. # collision‍: A few editors pointed out that in maritime terminology collision specifically refers to an incident involving two moving vessels (hence the prefix co-). Thus a "crash" between a moving ship and a stationary object such as a bridge is not properly described as a collision. This may explain why high quality sources used crash more often. Common usage does not make this distinction and many reliable sources do use collision and collide to describe this incident. On the other hand, where a suitable alternative exists (crash‍) it may be good editorial practice to avoid collision even if most readers won't notice. # strike‍: This had limited support but is reasonably descriptive and is found in sources, especially as a verb (The ship struck the bridge). # accident‍: Some sources including the NTSB do use this terminology. Though often used imprecisely in every day language, accident can imply that an event was unavoidable or that a finding of no fault has been made. Style guides for motor vehicle collisions often recommend against this word (e.g., Washington State Department of Transportation and this from Rutgers). # allision‍: This was raised several times and met with vigorous opposition. In maritime terminology, allision is the term for a moving vessel striking a stationary object. This word is found in dictionaries but will be inaccessible to most readers. Allision is not used in any article titles on WP. WP:DISASTER is silent on this usage question for maritime incidents but does have guidance for trains. (EDIT 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC): WP:DISASTER guidance on "accident" is discussed in the thread.) I could not find many articles to review for consistency. 1938 Muncy Raft crash does involve a moving vessel striking a bridge. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Poaceae → GrassGrass – According to the guideline WP:COMMONNAME, it says:
Extended content

In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. 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.[a] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also § National varieties of English, below. Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous[b] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability: People * Mahatma Gandhi (not: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) * Mansa Musa (not: Musa I) * Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) * J. K. Rowling (not: Joanne Rowling) * Bono (not: Paul Hewson) * Mark Antony (not: Marcus Antonius) * Shirley Temple (not: Shirley Temple Black) Places * Germany (not: Deutschland) * Great Pyramid of Giza (not: Pyramid of Khufu) * North Korea (not: Democratic People's Republic of Korea) * Westminster Abbey (not: Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster) Scientific and technical topics * Aspirin (not: acetylsalicylic acid) * Diesel engine (not: compression-ignition engine) * Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus) * Polio (not: poliomyelitis) * Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic) Product names and fictional characters * Windows XP (not: Windows NT 5.1) * Sailor Moon (character) (not: Usagi Tsukino) * Darth Vader (not: Anakin Skywalker) Other topics * Cello (not: Violoncello) * FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football) * Mueller report (not: Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) * Proxima Centauri (not: V645 Centauri or Alpha Centauri C) In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".[c] When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books[d]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test.

— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names

Notes

  1. ^ This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals. "Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.
  2. ^ Ambiguity, as used here, is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction.
  3. ^ Add this code in the search: -site:wikipedia.org.
  4. ^ Add this code in the search: -inauthor:"Books, LLC" (the quotation marks " " are essential); Books, LLC "publishes" compilations of WP articles.
Currently the article title for Grass is a redirect to Poaceae and the word "Poaceae" is a scientific term for grass that we do not use everyday but the word "grass" is the common word that we use for that plant. Vitaium (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 16:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sylvia Seegrist → 1985 Springfield Mall shooting – WP:BIO1E. While there is some notability to Seegrist as an individual, the primary focus is still the shooting. The aftermath section borders on WP:SOAP rather than being informative about either the state of gun control then and after or treatment of Seegrist's mental health. The last three paragraphs, particularly the last two, seem to hold undue weight and are written in a weirdly personal manner with lengthy quotations for what look to be just Seegrist's musing rather than anything relevant. The year in the title differentiates it from a more minor shooting that took place at the mall in 2018, reports of which reference the 1985 one fairly often without mention of Seegrist. Rubintyrann (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 10, 2025

[edit]

July 9, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Kirisuto no Haka → Tomb of Christ (Japan) – This article's current title uses the monument's Japanese name (romanised) instead of an English translation. I can't easily find an English source which refers to it as Kirisuto no Haka, rather, most tend to use translations such as "Christ's Grave," "the Grave of Jesus Christ," or "the Tomb of Christ." Similar translations are also reflected on the area's local signage. To best honour the spirit of WP:UE, I believe that the article should be renamed and moved to a space such as "Tomb of Christ (Japan)" — with the inclusion of "(Japan)" to remove ambiguity from other, similar monuments. ItsSwimm (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 14:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 8, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank → Karnataka Grameena Bank – Page Name Change. "Unified Karnataka Gramin Bank to come into existence on May 1". The Hindu. 2024-04-30. Vishnuverse (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 7, 2025

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Capsule toy → Capsule toy vending machineCapsule toy vending machine – The current name of this article is very misleading, suggesting it is about the toys sold by this type of the vending machine. Instead, the article is clearly about the vending machines themselves. The article should be renamed accordingly. I am unsure if capsule toy should have its own article one day. For now it can safely redirect to the "capsule toy vending machine" article (note: it did not exist, I just created it now as a temporary redirect here). Side note: there is also confusion about how this topic is different from Gashapon, which on en and ja has a stand-alone article. But most interwikis here - i.e. to capsule toy (vending machine) article are known as gashapons in other languages. Compare: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11294641 vs https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1204526 . From what I can tell, Gashapon is a specific brand name of a capsule vending machine. I am unsure if any merge is needed (leaning no), but I wanted to mention this before someone suggests renaming this article here to Gashapon. Interwikis at wikidata might merit some cleanup too, sigh;in fact the Wikidata article is about the capsule toy (not capsule toy vending machine), although most of the interwiki'd articles, like ours, are about the vending machine. A mess. PS. What needs to be done: Wikidata needs a page about capsule toy vending machines, pretty much all interwikis from Q11294641 need to be switched to that page (it can be an intentional sitelink to redirect to our capsule toy redirect). I'll do it later this year if nobody jumps on this first. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 6, 2025

[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.

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – 2017 Hamas charter → Hamas Document of General Principles and Policies – The current title does not reflect how this document is most commonly and neutrally described in reliable sources, contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. An analysis of sources shows that sources more frequently use "document" or similar terms than "charter", even when generously counting sources that use "charter" only with qualifications like "could be considered." Among sources that consider whether this constitutes a charter, there is no consensus, with some explicitly noting the document "does not replace the charter." The proposed title uses the official name given by Hamas, reflects the predominant terminology in sources, and maintains neutrality on the contested question of whether this document constitutes a new charter. If you're concerned about the length of the proposed title, please indicate whether an alternative 2017 Hamas policy document would be preferable. The current name is the result of a move that was done without a RM despite being clearly controversial and was challenged almost immediately here, so it doesn't constitute a stable consensus version. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 17:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Nuseirat rescue and massacre → Nuseirat raidNuseirat raid – The term massacre is absent from neutral and pro-Israel sources and thus violates NCENPOV. Two reasons, the RfC on EuroMed as yellow and always attribute and WP:TITLEWARRIOR, which called out opinion pieces and failing to recognize authorial voice (newspaper quotes X who says massacre, therefore newspaper says massacre which is false). This is similar to Entebbe raid, and the AP (premier neutral source) has also clarified less than a month ago that the Paletinian deaths ocurred during a gun battle during the raid (see [40]) Closetside (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Negative responsiveness → Mono-raise criterionMono-raise criterion – Last year these three pages were moved from their earlier names of "Monotonicity criterion", "Consistency criterion", and "Reversal symmetry" (as was "Participation criterion"). Two of the stated justifications for these moves were that the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" are vague and can mean multiple things and that the pages should be named consistently. But these changes created an inconsistency between these pages and the other pages on voting system criteria (which are named after the criteria themselves and not the paradoxes that occur when they are violated). And the vagueness of the terms "monotonicity" and "consistency" could be addressed by simply making the titles more specific. "Monotonicity criterion" could have been renamed "Mono-raise criterion" or "Monotonicity criterion (electoral systems)" and "Consistency criterion" could have been renamed "Join-consistency criterion" or "Consistency criterion (electoral systems)". As shown in the pages' histories, I tried to fix this. I moved "Best-is-worst paradox" back to "Reversal symmetry". I requested that "No-show paradox" be moved back to "Participation criterion", which later happened. I moved "Negative responsiveness" to "Mono-raise criterion" (which required editing to restore the page's earlier language). And I moved "Multiple districts paradox" to "Join-consistency criterion". However, the user who made the initial changes (Closed Limelike Curves) reversed most of what I did. They moved three of the pages back (but couldn't move back "Participation criterion") and reverted the aforementioned edits to the one page. I apologize if my actions have come across as aggressive, but in my opinion the pages "Participation criterion" and "Reversal symmetry" were fine under those names and the other two pages should have names that, while precise, are consistent with those of the other pages on voting system criteria. Discussion is welcome. But I do want to note that as it stands the page "Negative responsiveness" has the same paragraph (about monotonicity violations in proportional representation systems) appear twice in different sections. One of my reverted edits fixed this by removing one of the duplicates, and it would need to be fixed again in a future edit. I would do it myself, but I might as well let people first discuss which location is more appropriate for the paragraph. Thank you for your input. Man of Steel 85 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TMR2024 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).