Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. 65 discussions have been relisted.

October 1, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Czech Republic → Czechia – So, this is a perennial topic, but we said we would return to it in October to re-evaluate in the light of the Olympics, which is the latest in a long string of contexts in which we have recently seen a rapid change in usage. Before we get into arguments on the details, can we perhaps first have clarity on the criteria? These are laid down at Wikipedia:Article titles. May I suggest that everybody read that before they comment here? I think we can save ourselves a lot of time if we all agree to follow policy. Past discussions have suffered a lot from misinformation about this. Assuming that a subject has more than one title in reliable sources, the choice should be made primarily on five key criteria (shortcut WP:CRITERIA): recognizability (defined to mean that someone familiar with the topic will know what is meant), naturalness (meaning people will find it in a search), precision (what is most correct), concision (fewer words are better than more) and consistency (the article title follows a similar pattern to other articles on parallel topics). The policy page then goes on to talk about the rule of thumb that it is helpful to find the most commonly recognizable name (shortcut WP:COMMONNAME), not as an end in itself, but because this will often shed light on what best meets the five criteria. The logic is that if experts in the field have come to a consensus on terminology, they will usually have alighted on something that is recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. So for present purposes, common name means what is commonly used by relevant authoritative voices. It specifically does not mean we should follow whatever is statistically most commonly used by people on the street who may have limited familiarity with the topic, and the policy page warns against giving too much weight to Google hits and the likes. Rather, "[i]n 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." I hope we can agree on those principles. So how do they apply to this case? Here’s my take. Czechia seems to me to fit all the five criteria, and on three of the five, it fits better than Czech Republic. # recognizability – both options are equally recognizable; we’re way beyond the point where anyone might not know what is meant by Czechia. # naturalness – this is subjective, but I think people will find us, so again I don’t think there is anything here to speak against the move. # precision – this one matters. The most correct name for a country or a people is the name it chooses for itself. The Czech government has asked the English-speaking world to use Czechia. That fact trumps all others on the question of correctness. # concision – one word rather than two is not a massive difference, but Czechia wins there too. # consistency with other articles – this is the biggie. I can’t think of any other country for which Wikipedia uses the long, official-sounding name as the article title when there is also a short, colloquial one. Actually, the policy page on article names specifically gives the example that we should use North Korea, not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. So our article title Czech Republic is a total outlier. So on precision and consistency there are strong arguments for a move, and the other three criteria certainly don’t speak against one. I think those arguments have been made and won long ago. The reason we have not had a consensus to change is because of judgments about what is the common name. In my opinion these have been problematic for two reasons. First, it has been repeated here like a mantra that common name is all that matters – in fact the policy page is quite clear that common name is subsidiary to the five naming criteria. And secondly, it has been treated as though common name means what is statistically most frequently used – sorry, but if we based this on a vox pop on the streets of Birmingham or Chicago, we would end up moving back to Czechoslovakia! Google hit counts can be part of our thinking, but not a big part of it. Rather, common name means: what is used by people professionally involved with the topic. Here we have to be careful to look at recent sources, because usage is changing fast. The policy page gives us suggestions for how to decide this, and if we follow these, the argument for Czechia now being the common name is beginning to look strong: # The usage of international organizations – it is significant that this is the policy page’s number-one pointer to common name, and here we have observed a landslide in the direction of Czechia in the last couple of years. It is now used by the diplomatic arm of the Czech government, the EU, the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe, the British Foreign Office, the American State Department, the CIA, the Olympics, UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, and many, many others. # Media – I don’t have an overview here, so I’ll let someone else discuss that, but I’m certainly seeing it in the newspapers. # Quality encyclopedias – I’m not sure there are any recent enough to reflect current changes. # Geographic name servers – A cursory survey suggests these usually recognize Czechia. I think the likes of Google Maps would be highly relevant here, and it now uses Czechia. # Scientific bodies and journals – My impressions are probably anecdotal, but the university people I know in Czech studies have been using Czechia for years. We see it prescribed in style-sheets for academic publishing. I’m sure there is a lot of evidence in both directions that other people can add here, but please concentrate on these kinds of authorities. Common name is NOT about hit-counts. Obviously even authorities who now prefer Czechia will still use Czech Republic wherever they would use French Republic or Republic of France. The point is not that the long form has gone, but that the short form is used when the short form of any other country would be used. I submit that for the most part, the relevant authorities have now reached that point. Doric Loon (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) → Sieges of Gerona – Several issues I hope to address with these proposed moves. First, it makes little sense to have the "second" and "third" sieges as titles but to call the first event a battle; of the three is was the most like a battle, but the distinction is confusing in this case. It does seem that [ordinal] siege of Gerona is the most common manner of disambiguating the various events. If the first segment were to carry the WP:COMMONNAME "Battle" then it should not carry a parenthetical qualifier, being already WP:NATURALly disambiguated and the primary topic for the term; the base name Battle of Girona already redirects there and is WP:MISPLACED. Second, when used alone without additional context, "Siege of Gerona" does seem to refer to the successful final siege as a primary topic, and currently redirects there. I am proposing to leave this as a primary redirect and turn the disambiguation page into a set index at the plural, but I would also support having the set index in place of the redirect at the singular. Third, while I personally feel "Siege" in these titles is part of the proper noun, use in sources is mixed, and most "siege" articles on enwiki do not take siege as part of the proper noun (in contrast to "Battle of..." which is almost always part of the proper noun; I don't see the distinction) and WP:MILCAPS is vague, so for now let's go for being the most consistent. Lastly, as for the Girona vs. Gerona issue, there has been past move reversions and discussion about this (e.g. Talk:Third siege of Girona#Girona/Gerona), and we should reach consensus here. I am open to either spelling, but am proposing a return to Gerona because it does seem a majority of reliable sources use this spelling, and that is the criterion upon which we should base our choice. On the other hand, the modern spelling of the city is the Catalan spelling. Regardless, the set index/disambiguation page should use the same spelling as the articles. Overall, I am open to discussing and considering any and all variations of this proposal, but the status quo should not be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 30, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Republic of China (1912–1949) → Republican China – Primarily per the naturalness and concision WP:CRITERIA. The use of "Republican China" as a term referring to this periodization and its associated state is simply ubiquitous in English-language sources, such as The Cambridge History of China.[1] By contrast, merely "Republic of China" is not used as a term referring specifically to the pre-1949 period, so a parenthetical disambiguator is arguably inappropriate. On that note, this change would also more elegantly distinguish the scope of this article from that of Taiwan. This specific move was previously suggested in 2018: suffice it to say, I did not find the opposing arguments convincing. Heading a few potential objections off at the pass: firstly, historiographical labels function perfectly well as article titles in situations like these, cf. July Monarchy, Revolutionary Catalonia, Nazi Germany. Secondly, several editors argued the terms are not synonymous, or that "Republican China" refers only to the mainland during this period; these seem clearly dubious to me, and no further explanation or evidence for such distinctions was provided in the previous discussion. One final note: I was motivated to pose this RM as the result an offsite discussion with Generalissima, who was asking about the current naming situation and pondering about starting an RM herself; I then offered to do it instead.

References

  1. ^
    • Twitchett, Denis Crispin; Fairbank, John King, eds. (1983) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 1). Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-23541-9.
    • Fairbank, John King; Feuerwerker, Albert, eds. (1986) [1978]. Republican China, 1912–1949 (Part 2). The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-24338-4.
    • Gao, James Zheng (2009). Historical Dictionary of Modern China (1800-1949). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. ISBN 0-8108-4930-5.
Remsense ‥ 论 00:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Rococo Revival → Rococo revival – Per MOS:CAPS, the Wikipedia guidelines specify that we should render something as a proper name only if it is "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". However, looking at a pair of ngrams for this, one comparing the capitalised form of the bare name against other common capitalisations - [15] and the other including the word "was" afterwards, to eliminate false positives from titles and suchlike - [16] - we can see that while 20 or 30 years ago the title-case version was very dominant, in recent times it has dwindled to almost neck-and-neck. Thus the stipulation above is no longer met, and we should render this in sentence case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – SS Ivernia → RMS Ivernia (1899) – I've been performing significant research on Ivernia at the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums, and with other primary sources including ship's passenger lists and correspondence. These all indicate the ship was in fact issued a Royal Mail contract like its sisters, Saxonia and Carpathia . As such, like its sister, the article should be named RMS Ivernia (1899) in line with its sister, using its launch date for disambiguation. This probably means that RMS Ivernia should be also disambiguated to RMS Ivernia (1955). An example of evidence of this prefix that is publicly accessible can be found here: https://www.loc.gov/resource/magbell.04100128/?sp=1&st=image Where Alexander Graham Bell is writing to his wife using official Cunard Letterhead on the Ivernia, stating the RMS prefix, which would have been a highly controversial thing to do less than six months after its maiden voyage if it had not in fact been given contract for the prefix. Other examples include the ship's crew writing RMS on passenger lists, articles in contemporary engineering journals using the RMS prefix, and more, although many of these are not in the public domain. Conversely, all evidence the ship was named SS Ivernia come from secondary sources, possibly influenced in part by the wikipedia title, with hobbyist indexes of ships, wreck sites, and other such content. Tobin Dax (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 29, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – List of Roblox games → List of notable Roblox games – Despite its tagging as a dynamic list and the title implying that it is a comprehensive list of Roblox games, this page is instead intended to outline a few notable games which do not meet criteria for a full page. Therefore, this should probably be renamed as such, especially given that the inclusion criteria for games that can be added to this page need be notable themselves. This page also goes beyond the standard list format which would usually just use bullets or tables. FamiliarFlareon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement) – Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now. In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning. (See Clickstreams from the last three months hidden box below.) Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 28, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Million Roses → Dāvāja Māriņa – Move to original title of song. Current title is English translation of Russian title. No English version of the song is known to exist. Other feasible titles would be Dāvāja Māriņa meitenei mūžiņu (longer version of title), Million roz (transliterated official Russian title) or Million alykh roz (common colloquial version of Russian title). While it could be argued that the Russian version is more widely known, I believe using the original Latvian title (with the Russian titles as redirects) is more respectful and appropriate, considering also that the Raimonds Pauls is famous in Russia too, and the song is AFAIK widely known there to be his, and also AFAIK neither version is widely known in English sources. The shorter Latvian title seems to be more common and also used in Latvian wiki; I don't know if the longer title is actually official (although it has been used on at least one Latvian cover). Mats84 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Extremely online → Chronically online – Chronically online is the common name. I looked up "chronically online", "terminally online", and "extremely online" with quotation marks on Google, and 933,000, 240,000, 153,000 search results were returned respectively (the numbers may vary, but not the order). Chronically online is also the descriptive name, as chronically and acutely are two different things, with terminally and extremely possibly referring to acutely, which would be an inaccurate characterization. Anecdotally, I hear chronically online slightly more commonly than terminally online while almost never hearing extremely online, which has been backed by the search results. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 01:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 27, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Copenhagen criteria → European Union membership criteria – This article includes both the Copenhagen criteria and geographic criteria; according to comments on the talk page these are separate. Readers interested in one topic are probably interested in the other, so having them both in a single article makes sense, and it's been that way for a while. This proposal is to change the title to match the contents of the article, to resolve the repeated complaints on the talk page that the geographic criteria are off-topic. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – AIM-174B → AIM-174 – Might as well eliminitae the "B" per WP:CONCISE -- the "AIM-174B" is *technically* a specific variant of the AIM-174. Also allows for future variants (a hypothetical AIM-174C, for instance) to be added with no issue. Attempted to move myself, cannot; re-direct exists. MWFwiki (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 26, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Enhanced interrogation techniques → Use of torture under George W. Bush – It seems like the last time this was debated, much of the content of the page and the WP:RS consensus was not present. Now, the article itself shows near unanimous agreement that EIT = torture. I don't have a good replacement name, but the current name has about as much support as "Shower Rooms in Nazi Germany". For example: "According to ABC news in 2007, the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of acceptable interrogation techniques in 2006." If these techniques were "enhanced", why are they no longer used? Even the group the put that name out there doesn't believe in the techniques anymore. It was a branding exercise, not a meaningful summary or specifier on the techniques used. Compare to Enhanced driver's license and Enhanced Fujita scale. I just skimmed the article and the only people I could find calling it not-torture in the modern-ish era are: Bush administration officials, and NPR in 2009 (15 years ago). NPR has since published the term in scare quotes[1], leading one to wonder how useful the descriptor is. I notice the page for Armenian genocide is not the "events of 1915" (one of the Turkish euphemisms for the genocide), for example.

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/17/544183178/psychologists-behind-cia-enhanced-interrogation-program-settle-detainees-lawsuit. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)).[reply]

September 25, 2024

[edit]

September 24, 2024

[edit]
  • (Discuss) – Quonset Hut Studio → Bradley Studios – The studio that came to be known as the "Quonset hut studio" was the second of two studios (Studio B) at Bradley Studios. Bradley Studios was later purchased by Columbia Studios, who retained the "Quonset hut studio" as Columbia Studio B, but built a new Columbia Studio A as part of the Music Row complex. While Studio B has generally been known as the "Quonset hut studio", it's only part of the story of that recording facility, and even the historical marker at the site is about Bradley Studios and not only the "Quonset hut studio". Now that the article has been expanded to encompass Bradley Studios and later Columbia Studios, I think the article would more appropriately be named Bradley Studios, with a Redirect page for the "Quonset hut studio". synthfiend (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Middleton F.C. (1890) → Middleton F.C. – The original Middleton F.C. page was for a prominent football club from the 1890s. A user tried to delete the page (without warning) so that they could create a new page for a non-league club of no prominence. That having failed, they simply deleted all the text for the 1890 club, which got reverted; and then moved the 1890 club page to a new page, meaning the links to it were duly ruined. Now the "new" Middleton club has changed its name so these underhand shenanigans were all moot. Am proposing we put the 1890 club back to where it was created as there are no links to the new club - notably the person who made all these changes did so without contacting the page creator (me) once... In Vitrio (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – LGBT pride → LGBTQ pride – The page was moved from Gay pride to LGBT pride a few years ago in recognition that this article is about Pride of the community, not just exclusively the Gay community, despite the term Gay pride still being higher in use than LGBT pride was at the time, so the consensus for the article was explicitly to deviate from exclusively applying WP:COMMONNAME as a compound word in the move in 2022 in recognition that the true common name nowadays is just Pride without any qualifiers. Now as a followup some years later, I propose we move it to LGBTQ pride in recognition of the community continuing to evolve and explicitly adding the Q as was also recently done in the main article LGBTQ (RM discussion) in recognition of LGBTQ replacing just LGBT. The person that contested the bold move argued that WP:COMMONNAME applied, but as I pointed out, this article is already not named in line with strict common name of the combined term, but in recognition of the community as the true common name today is simply "Pride" (in line with the sibling articles Pride Month and Pride parade, which doesn't need a qualifier, so no suffix or prefix is needed to disambiguate) without any qualifiers, but since the article requires a qualifier to differentiate it from just the English word Pride, it was then decided to add LGBT for it, which was the common name for the community at large at the time, consistent with the parent article, which was also LGBT at the time and instead of using Pride (LGBT) it was decided to use LGBT Pride per WP:NATURAL to use a prefix, not a suffix, so the current article title should not be interpreted as a compound word, but instead is just a natural combination instead of suffix disambiguation. Following this now, I believe means we should continue to now also follow WP:CONSUB for consistent titling of sub-articles related to the parent title. This is also supported if we combine LGBTQ pride and Queer pride, which is about double that of just LGBT pride per Google Ngram and this also shows that LGBT pride is on a downwards trend since 2017, while LGBTQ pride and Queer pride both are on an upwards trajectory, both individually, as well as combined having overtaken just LGBT pride since 2016. The other alternative would be to break from the natural title disambiguation and call the aticle Pride (LGBTQ) in recognition that the name of the article is just Pride and that the prefix or suffix are just disambiguators from Pride (disambiguation) terms. Raladic (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Folklore of Russia → Russian folklore – The article content is specifically about Russian folklore. Folklore of other numerous indigenous peoples of Russia are completely different. The lede of the moved page must be edited accordingly. And "Folklore of Russia" must be turned into a list: "Russian folklore", "Chuvanh folklore", "Bashkir folklore", "Karelian-Finnish folklore", "Yakut folklore", etc. It may be supplanted with a text of mutual influence of these folklores, is scholarly articles exist. and/or sections may be created, with summaries of the above folklores, per WP:Summary style. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax → Springfield pet-eating hoax – See this Talk page discussion. (1) Consensus to omit "Ohio" per WP:CONCISE: although there are numerous other cities named Springfield in the United States, none have been subject to widely publicized claims that domestic animals are being stolen and eaten. (2) Consensus to change "cat" to "pet": although the hoax clearly began with cats, it almost immediately grew to encompass preexisting rumors of Springfield waterfowl being eaten, and Donald Trump's now-famous debate quote includes dogs and unspecified other pets. (3) Consensus NOT to include "immigrant", "migrant", or "Haitian" per WP:CONCISE: not strictly necessary to disambiguate the topic. (4) Changing the word "hoax" to "rumor", "conspiracy theory", or "claim": this was the most contentious part of the previous RMs and clearly failed to reach consensus. I respectfully request that we confine the RM discussion to the less contentious words in the article name. Carguychris (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Éric Borel → Cuers massacre – This could go either way, but I think this article would be better scoped as an article on the event and not the perpetrator, given WP:BIO1E. Admittedly, a very large proportion of the coverage on the event is about Borel, so even as an event-based article it will probably still largely be about him, but given that he has no notability outside of it and how the event is covered I believe it will be easier to structure and improve as an event-based article. The common title for the event in French is "Tuerie de Cuers", literally Cuers massacre. There were killings in other locations but the sources call it this. This incident is usually referred to without the year in French given how notorious it was (I think it's the worst non-terror mass shooting in France), but admittedly is not too well known overseas so specifying the year may be necessary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [26] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

[edit]
Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – 2019 El Paso shooting → 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting – Per WP:UCRN. Though at the time of the shooting (around 2019) the shooting was more commonly referred to as something in the vein of "El Paso shooting" by reliable sources, in recent years reliable sources trend towards calling it something akin to "El Paso Walmart shooting". Out of 50 articles published since 2020 about the incident, 42 mention Walmart in the title while 8 do not. The 'Walmart' aspect appears to be part of a commonly recognised naming convention, which should be reflected in the page's title. Reliable sources that tended to include 'Walmart' in their titles include CNN, PBS, BBC News, ABC News, AP News, The Independent, the Washington Post, NBC News and others. Local news sources, such as the Texas Tribune and El Paso Times, tended to also refer to 'Walmart' in their titles. I recommend '2019 El Paso Walmart shooting' as it fits other naming conventions. If needed, I can provide several of the referenced articles, though they can be found by Google search. Macxcxz (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Assyrian–Chaldean–Syriac diaspora → Assyrian diaspora – Much like my request to rename "Assyrians/Syriacs in Sweden" to "Assyrians in Sweden", the reasoning applies that the article refers to the same people as simply "Assyrian", while respecting that there are several different identifications for them such as "Syriac", "Chaldean", and "Aramean". Additionally, it would bring the article to the pattern of other articles that talk about the Assyrian diaspora, especially as the article is no longer prone to edit-warring as it was when it was first made. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are: *[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.[14] *Just Richmond Branch Railway:[15][12] *Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.[16]

References

  1. ^ "Eryholme–Richmond branch line". TriplyDB: The Network Effect for Your Data. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  2. ^ "A Walk to Easby Abbey » Two Dogs and an Awning". Two Dogs and an Awning. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  3. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 65. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  4. ^ Body, Geoffrey (1989). Railways of the Eastern Region volume 2. Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens. p. 68. ISBN 1-85260-072-1.
  5. ^ Haigh, A. (1979). Yorkshire railways: including Cleveland and Humberside. Clapham: Dalesman Books. p. 24. ISBN 0-85206-553-1.
  6. ^ Young, Alan (2015). Lost stations of Yorkshire; the North and East Ridings. Kettering: Silver Link. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-85794-453-2.
  7. ^ Hoole, Kenneth (1985). Railway stations of the North East. Newton Abbot: David and Charles. p. 48. ISBN 0-7153-8527-5.
  8. ^ Suggitt, Gordon (2007). Lost railways of North and East Yorkshire. Newbury: Countryside Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-85306-918-5.
  9. ^ Burgess, Neil (2011). The Lost Railway's of Yorkshire's North Riding. Catrine: Stenlake. p. 13. ISBN 9781840335552.
  10. ^ Blakemore, Michael (2005). Railways of the Yorkshire Dales. Ilkley: Great Northern. p. 54. ISBN 1-905080-03-4.
  11. ^ "RID mileages". railwaycodes.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  12. ^ a b Lloyd, Chris (1 July 2017). "90 years ago three million people headed north by rail to witness one of the biggest events of the year - a total eclipse of the sun". The Northern Echo. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  13. ^ Shannon, Paul (2023). Branch Line Britain. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. p. 127. ISBN 978-1-39908-990-6.
  14. ^ "North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List" (PDF). railwaymuseum.org.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024. Various pages - use the search function for Richmond
  15. ^ "List of North Yorkshire & North Riding plans of railway lines..." (PDF). archivesunlocked.northyorks.gov.uk. p. 5. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  16. ^ "Darlington-Richmond Line (Closure) Volume 774: debated on Wednesday 4 December 1968". hansard.parliament.uk. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Altaic languages → Altaic hypothesis – Per above This article has been a constant struggle to get the academic consensus to be the focus of the article, particularly in light of many people simply not realizing the Altaic hypothesis isn't actually widely accepted as fact. "Altaic hypothesis" is heavily used in the literature (i.e. here) and allows us to differentiate the sprachbund and language family arguments more clearly in the body of the article. It also means someone looking up the topic on Wikipedia who isn't familiar with it isn't going to be met with the same heading we use for language families followed up immediately by a statement that it isn't likely a genetic language family. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 17:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Gyat → Gyatt – "Gyatt" is potentially the more common spelling, at least in my experience online (The provided sources seem split). The Kai Cenat quote in the article describing the word’s expanded popularity from his usage spells it as Gyatt. The disambiguation page currently present at "Gyatt" contains an alternate spelling for guyot that is unsourced and mentioned nowhere on the target article. "Gyat" could merge to "Gyatt", guyot should be removed, and the USS Gyatt linking should be a note at the top. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading of Beans 05:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Tropical Storm Conson (2021) → Tropical Storm Conson – Can this page be moved to just Tropical Storm Conson? As Daniel boxs stated above, the name was retired after the 2021 Pacific typhoon season. While there was a more notable iteration of Conson last 2010, it was a typhoon. This is the only page that is named "Tropical Storm Conson"— the 2004 and 2010 iterations were typhoons, and the 2016 iteration redirects you to the 2016 typhoon page, so it's a little distinctive compared to the previous Conson iterations. Bugnawfang (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Bugnawfang (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Moggy → Domestic cat (landrace) – Wikipedia is a worldwide resource. Cats are found worldwide. There is no place for a localized colloquialism to be a MAIN page reference on Wikipedia. I am located in the United States and never once have I ever heard the term “moggy” used to refer to a cat. The merging of Domestic short-haired cat and Domestic long-haired cat was an appropriate move as the only difference is the gene for hair growth. However, I don’t understand why a slang term page was revived from like, 2007 to merge the two pages together. Wikipedia Manual of Style in the Opportunities for Commonality section states that as an international English-speaking Wikipedia, using universally accepted terms is much more appropriate. For example, “to mog” or “mogging” in Gen Alpha terms - see mog. Nobody outside of Britian or Australia even knows what a moggy is. To make things messier, there were previous merges and fights about “moggy” vs. “moggie.” Y’all do not need a page for your local colloquialism. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality bullet points 1-4. My new write-up for the beginning of the new article also explains this landrace breed, using hyphenation glossing as is suggested by the Manual of Style: A Domestic shorthair or Domestic longhair cat, sometimes regionally referred to as a moggy, is a landrace breed of cat reproducing without human intervention for type. The vast majority of cats worldwide lack any pedigree ancestry. The landrace can include cats living with humans or in feral colonies. Gene flow moves between the two populations as feral cats are tamed, housecats are released, and free-roaming unneutered cats breed freely. Simmy27star (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 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) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions&oldid=1248761275#Elapsed_listings"