Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Updating requested pagemoves list
Updating requested pagemoves list
Line 272: Line 272:
* ''([[Talk:Sloviansk#Requested move |Discuss]])'' – '''[[:Sloviansk]] → {{no redirect|Slavyansk, Ukraine}}''' – Overwhelming Russian speaking, own website calling it Славянск, translit. Slavyansk http://www.slavrada.gov.ua/. 2 mio hits in https://www.google.com/search?q=slavyansk (includes Slavyansk-na-Kubani - if someone can exclude it, fine.) [[User:ArmijaDonetsk|ArmijaDonetsk]] ([[User talk:ArmijaDonetsk|talk]]) 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
* ''([[Talk:Sloviansk#Requested move |Discuss]])'' – '''[[:Sloviansk]] → {{no redirect|Slavyansk, Ukraine}}''' – Overwhelming Russian speaking, own website calling it Славянск, translit. Slavyansk http://www.slavrada.gov.ua/. 2 mio hits in https://www.google.com/search?q=slavyansk (includes Slavyansk-na-Kubani - if someone can exclude it, fine.) [[User:ArmijaDonetsk|ArmijaDonetsk]] ([[User talk:ArmijaDonetsk|talk]]) 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


* ''([[Talk:American Teacher (film)#Move?|Discuss]])'' – '''[[:American Teacher (film)]] → {{no redirect|American Teacher}}''' – per [[WP:PRECISION]]&nbsp;– <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
* ''([[Talk:American Teacher#Move?|Discuss]])'' – '''[[:American Teacher]] → {{no redirect|American Teacher}}''' – per [[WP:PRECISION]]&nbsp;– <small>[[User:Bovineboy2008|BOVINEBOY]]</small>[[User talk:Bovineboy2008|2008]] 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


* ''([[Talk:Brute.#Requested move |Discuss]])'' – '''[[:Brute.]] → {{no redirect|Brute (band)}}''' – Per [[MOS:TM]] we don't use gimmicky formatting and also a period is not adequate disambiguation from [[Brute]]. [[User:Zarcadia|Zarcadia]] ([[User talk:Zarcadia|talk]]) 12:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
* ''([[Talk:Brute.#Requested move |Discuss]])'' – '''[[:Brute.]] → {{no redirect|Brute (band)}}''' – Per [[MOS:TM]] we don't use gimmicky formatting and also a period is not adequate disambiguation from [[Brute]]. [[User:Zarcadia|Zarcadia]] ([[User talk:Zarcadia|talk]]) 12:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:14, 23 April 2014

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.

April 23, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Julián Castro → Julián Castro Contreras – To better distinguish this president of Venezuela from Julian Castro, the American politician. Currently the only distinguisher between their two articles is that this article has an accent over the "a" in the name ‪Julián‬, while the American politician's article has no accent. That is awfully subtle. And the American politician actually uses the accent himself sometimes, so that isn't even a good disambiguator. The American politician does not seem to have any other names, so the best disambiguator would be to use the full name ‪Julián‬ Castro Contreras for this title. There should also be a hatnote (as there already is) at the Julian Castro article. MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Genua (disambiguation) → Genua – I just fixed ±32 incoming links that were aimed at the real-life Italian city but were redirected to the fictional Discworld city. At the same time there are only 14 incoming links from Discworld-articles. Therefore I conclude that more people use Genua as the alternative spelling for the real-life city and probably a regular disambiguation page would be best instead of a auto-redirect to the lesser used fictional location. FakirNL (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels → Gaza–Egypt tunnels – Use of neutral title. I have no problem with the term "smuggling tunnels" as an alternative name, but it is definitely non-neutral. The tunnels are used with the approval of Gaza authorities, to import essential goods into Gaza, which are illegally blocked by Israel and Egypt. The frequent use of the non-neutral term by the media does not justify the use of a non-neutral title if an acceptable alternative is available. Wickey-nl (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – New Zealand Young Nationals → Young Nats (New Zealand) – Ok, let's try this again and this time with some more substance. Let's consider what the formal name is, how common the abbreviation is, whether NZ or New Zealand is part of the name, and if not, whether disambiguation is needed. And we may want to consider Facebook.The formal name first. When I look on their website, I cannot figure out whether they are in fact the Young Nationals or the Young Nats. They appear to have referred to themselves as Young Nationals in the past, see for example this page on Te Ara. What I do see is that their logo shows Young Nats, and that's how they most commonly refer to themselves. Leaving history aside and looking at current usage, this is more pointing towards Young Nats than Young Nationals.Let's have a look at Google next. Given that there are overseas organisations that also call themselves Young Nats or Young Nationals, I have restricted all searches to 'site:nz'. I get the results as shown in the table below. We need to compare two searches at a time. The first two lines tell me that Young Nats is more common than Young Nationals. That is even more so the case when we include "New Zealand" within the search term. If we reduce the additional search term to "NZ", the number of hits becomes quite tiny. So this suggests that Young Nats is the common name.I cannot see that NZ or New Zealand is part of the official name.This then leaves us with the question whether we have to consider disambiguation. If we accept that the Young Nationals (Australia) are sometimes referred to as Young Nats, then disambiguation is in order; I note, however, that the redirect Young Nats (Australia) does not exist. IP User 65.94.77.36 has provided quite a few external links above that refer to Young Nats of various type. It's not crystal clear, but an argument could be made for disambiguation. If that's indeed needed, we need to follow the naming conventions for political parties, and the accepted way to do it is by adding the country in parentheses.So what about their Facebook page, where they call themselves NZ Young Nats? I'm guessing that they couldn't call themselves Young Nats on Facebook because a young woman has beaten them to it, so they had to are wanted to disambiguate themselves. Either way, they are not commonly calling themselves NZ Young Nats on their website (they do use the term for the website name, though, but there are only 17 Google hits in total on their site), and how they call themselves on Facebook is irrelevant for the naming of an article on Wikipedia.So, how about it? Comments please. I'd be grateful if somebody could dig out the formal name; I'm sure that somewhere there is a formal register where organisations are recorded. Schwede66 08:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 22, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Venus series → Amtor – match the Barsoom article which is not called "Martian series", it'd be much clearer what this was about, since "Venus series" is generic. Indeed, several authors have their own Venus series. Further, as this is a descriptive name and not a prescriptive name, it should have been Burroughs' Venus series per WP:PRECISE. The prescriptive name is Amtor, being the fictional location. So, I think this should be called "Amtor" preferentially, or failing that, "Burroughs' Venus series" 70.24.250.192 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Battle of Edington → Battle of Ethandune – This issue was discussed 2 years ago, but the discussion was confused and inconclusive. "Ethandune" (with minor spelling variations) is definitely the term used by various primary sources, and although nowadays most historians believe that the battle took place at the modern village of Edington, even now opinion is not unanimous on this and other sites have been proposed. The term "Battle of Ethandune" is used on the monument on the presumed site at Edington, and in some works of historical fiction e.g. G.K. Chesterton's "Ballad of the Vale of the White Horse" and C. Walter Hodge's novel "The Marsh King". PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Afghan Girl → Sharbat Gula – Whatever this article once was, it is now serving as a biography of a woman who was the subject of an iconic photograph. As such, we should name the article based on the name of the person. One could argue per WP:COMMONNAME that this photograph was so famous, and her identity was unknown for SO long, that "Afghan girl" is indeed her COMMONNAME, but I would reject this argument. "Afghan girl" is not, and was never, her "name" nor was it ever considered to be her name by those who used it; instead, it was a moniker or nickname, given because her real name wasn't known (as such, it could be distinguished from pseudonyms like Lady Gaga vs Stefani Germanotta); it's more akin to Green river killer or other monikers given to people who haven't (yet) been identified. If you look at the other entries in Category:Subjects_of_iconic_photographs, all of them are now at the real name, even if at the time of the photographs their identities weren't always known - the only exception being Tank Man, whose name still isn't known. If we were to split this article, and have one article about the photo at Afghan Girl (photo) and another article about this woman's life, that would also be acceptable - but having the title of a known, and still-living person, be "Afghan girl" when her real name is known and published widely in reliable sources just seems wrong. Even if COMMONNAME points us in a different direction in terms of pure hits, we should still move this article per WP:IAR; I think the wiki will be clearly better if this article is titled with her name, and not a moniker which was only used since her name wasn't known. I do note that COMMONNAME states: "Ambiguous 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." I think this is a great example of same - this name is ambiguous (which Afghan girl?), and inaccurate (e.g. this is clearly not intended to be her name, nor was it ever intended by anyone using it to stand in the place of her name - Afghan girl was a placeholder, that is all). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 21, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Beevers (surname) → Beevers – It seems strange, and slightly condescending, to assume that a reader searching for "Beevers" is a lousy speller. In general, I think it's unwise to assume someone has made a typo unless it's a very common one and you're redirecting to a much more notable topic. By all means, let's have a {{distinguish}} hatnote here pointing to Beaver, though. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Southern Boobook → Morepork – To agree with article text, which no longer even mentions "Southern Boobook" at all, where ever that came from. This RM is independent of the scientific naming taxonomic dispute, which could play out in the academic literature for years. The title here has to agree with the text. If there's a consensus to change the lead to focus on some name other than morepork (or Morepork the way a lot of birders like to capitalize), then change the title to match whatever that is. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 20, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Sarah Jane Brown → Sarah Brown – The current title at Sarah Jane Brown is problematic. To see this, type 'Sarah Jane Brown' into Google. You will see that, ignoring Wikipedia results, the subject of this article barely appears and instead the results are dominated by a not particularly well-known sculptor. This means that the name fails WP:COMMONNAME ('Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources'), WP:MIDDLES#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names ('Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised') and WP:AT ('Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject') [thank you to User:Obiwankenobi, who collected these quotations many months ago]. Instead, I propose moving the article to Sarah Brown, the common name of the subject. The article was previously hosted at 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)', but some users found this offensive and the article was moved to Sarah Jane Brown. At the time, 'Sarah Brown' was the name of another article: the article now placed at 'Sarah Joy Brown'. This means that the page 'Sarah Brown' is currently free as a disambiguation page. If users are concerned that readers looking for Sarah Joy Brown might simply search for Sarah Brown, then we could place a note at the top of the article. 86.137.46.209 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Roxelana → Hürrem Sultan – Her official royal name is Hürrem Sultan, she is also known by this nickname (Roxelana). Many Ottoman sultanas were known by some nicknames in other countries. For example Roxelana's daughter, Mihrimah Sultan, is also known as "Cameria" or Mahidevran Sultan is also known as "Rosne Pranvere", but we should only use their more famous names as in Mihrimah and Mahidevran, so I think we should move "Roxelana" to "Hürrem Sultan". This is the name that she is known with as the wife of the Sultan and her most common name. She is more famous with the name "Hürrem". --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Keivan.fTalk 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 19, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Alaska Native Regional Corporations → Alaska Native Corporation – There are a few issues involved here. First is a WP:COMMONNAME one, in that these are more commonly referred to without the "regional" designation. I found "Alaska Native Corporations" to be more common in general, Books, and Scholar Google searches, so it passes my COMMONNAME rule of thumb. (Theoretically some such results could be referring to any corporation run by Alaska Natives, but I didn't see many false positives.) Second is a WP:SINGULAR issue. While this fits "Articles on groups or classes of specific things," my experiences at Talk:Scottish clan#Requested move have made me think I should err on the side of a singular title. Finally, the corresponding category is Category:Alaska Native regional corporations, so there might be a capitalization issue to discuss (we can also WP:C2D that category based on what happens here). I think the current capitalization is correct, though, since this is a specific type of legal entity. To make things easier on the closer, I will accept any name that excludes "Regional," regardless of plural form or capitalization. --Relisted. Xoloz (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC) BDD (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 18, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Catherine Hayes → Catherine Hayes (murderer) – Please move per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: both Catherine Hayes (murderer) and Catherine Hayes (soprano) were about equally (in)famous in the nineteenth century, and both are about equally obscure today. Still, both turn up reasonable Google traffic: "Catherine Hayes singer" gets 3,930,000 hits; "Catherine Hayes murderer" gets 1,320,000 hits. Other search terms (e.g, opera or soprano with the singer, or "murderess" instead of murderer for the killer) put one or the other Catherine into the Google lead. But they seem approximately equally well-known on that measure. Further, before I created the article on the soprano today, multiple articles mentioning the soprano erroneously linked to the article on the murderer. If both titles were parenthetical--and if the bare "Catherine Hayes" title redirected to the DAB page, which I'd like to request as soon as this page can be moved--then that sort of grievous error would be less likely to occur, not least because editors who accidentally link to a DAB page automatically get notes on their talk pages. Thanks! Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Scientific revolution → ? – This article address a particular era during which a number of particularly significant scientific breakthroughs were made; isn't this why, therefore, that – like the Industrial Revolution example previously given – it's given the name "Scientific Revolution" (or perhaps "The [S/s]cientific [R/r]evolution"), while "[S/s]cientific revolution" can/is used to describe/refer to any one of these and other breakthroughs across a (much) longer period (regardless of whether they merit it)...? Scan the media and popular science books, for instance... Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – War in Darfur → Darfur Crisis – What this conflict has always actually been—given the annexation of formerly-independent Darfur by the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan during WWI and initiation of hostilities by the rebels—is the "Darfur Rebellion" or "Revolt"; if it were considered a civil war, the name would be the "Sudan" or "Sudanese Civil War". The first two simply aren't in common use and the latter two are used to describe the conflict that led to South Sudan.As editor Tilmanb already noted, this conflict's ENGLISH COMMONNAME is the "Darfur Crisis" or "Crisis in Darfur". Google ngram backs it up and it's not even close. Google scholar similarly prefers "Darfur Crisis" to "War in Darfur" by a 2:1 margin. (The looser phrasing "crisis in Darfur" is 50% more common (but includes generic references); the stricter phrasing "Darfur War" is four times even less common or ~8 times less common than "Darfur Crisis".)The existing discussion on this was minimal. TheFEARgod and Nightstallion felt the existing name was "euphemistic" and moved it. If the common name were "genocide", we'd have to tread carefully and balance our sources with the strength of the accusation to make sure it was justified. Ignoring our sources, on the other hand, in order to strengthen their phrasing is the very definition of POV. (Fwiw, the page may have been "Darfur Conflict" at that point... that wasn't the best name, but the current one isn't either.) Given the poor reasoning behind the existing name and the vastly greater English-language use of "Darfur Crisis", let's move this to where everyone is already looking for it.  — LlywelynII 02:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 17, 2014

  • (Discuss) – Comic Sans MS → Comic Sans – Based on its usage in the sources linked within the article and in any measure of ghits, "Comic Sans" is this topic's common name. Following McGeddon's outline of previous move justifications above, the official or formal name "Comic Sans MS" can still be used atop the article as its full name, but the common name policy says

    Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

    I propose this move because that name in this article's reliable sources is "Comic Sans" sans "MS". czar ♔ 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Garrett (character) → Garrett (Thief) – Naming this article "Garrett (character)" makes very little sense at all. Not only is it redundant to denote that this individual is a character in the article's title, there really is no reason why he should be given priority to be denoted as a character in his title as opposed to any other fictional character with the name "Garrett" and no surname. Granted I am no currently aware of any other fictional characters who are named Garrett, have no surname, and have their own article on Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean that this particular character should be denoted as simply "character" in his title. This title should be changed immediately. If not to "Garrett (Thief) then at the very least Garrett (video game character). Nahald (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 16, 2014

Backlog

Shortcut
  • (Discuss) – IPhone 5S → IPhone 5s – As mentioned by editors earlier, a large amount of reliable sources have begun to adopt Apple's convention of referring to the name of this smartphone device as "iPhone 5s" rather than "iPhone 5S". A proposed change to MOS:TM will allow such forms to be used if they are "consistently used by a clear majority of high level, independent sources". Additionally, I, upon further review, still do not think "5s" is a violation of MOS:TM even right now, because "5s" is not a word, it is a model number—hence it does not have to follow standard English-language formatting. If this move is approved, it will be interpreted as consensus for iPhone 4s and iPhone 5c as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Heartbleed → Heartbleed bug – This is likely going to be a current events report that will pass from memory in a few months once all internet services have patched their latest version of OpenSSL, whereas "heartbleed" is a common term referring to any number of heart conditions and should have been left as a disambiguation page. Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title criteria:# Recognizability: Everyone would know heartbleed in the software sense of the term, that is as a software bug, if it is moved to the new title. In the more persistent and long-term medical sense of the word, everyone would be more likely to know heartbleed as a problematic condition of the heart that occurs, well, when the heart bleeds.# Naturalness: A disambiguation would be more likely to point users to a number of terms they could choose from when searching through Wikipedia, and not always about the software sense of the term for a couple technical know-how nerds. As it is, we are giving undue weight and catering unnecessarily to the smaller technical community while obscuring with a hatnote what the more common use of this term should be in the worldwide community - the medical sense.# Precision: Should be self-evident.# Conciseness: Perhaps not as a concise, but definitely more precise.# Consistency: I am open to suggestions to make this more disambiguated, such as "Heartbleed (software)" or any number of article titles that would better serve our readers.Let me know what you think. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – NRG Astrodome → Houston Astrodome – I understand that the stadium still has a naming rights agreement (As to how a stadium that has been closed for almost a decade still has an active naming rights agreement is beyond me.), but the stadium will likely be demolished at some point. Even if it isn't and is preserved, it's likely not going to reopen for any major events. The stadium was known as the Houston Astrodome for most of its active history, and this is what most people would refer to it as such, if not just simply Astrodome. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 02:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Jgera5 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=605496446"