Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPM)

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For information on retitling files, categories, and other items, see § When not to use this page.

Before moving a page or requesting a move, please review the article titling policy and the guidelines on primary topics.

Any autoconfirmed user can move a page using the "Move" option in the editing toolbar; see how to move a page for more information. If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. In such cases, see § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are typically processed after seven days. If consensus supports the move at or after this time, a reviewer will perform it. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved." When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time, or closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcuts
Shortcuts

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the bottom of the list, filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new title|reason=edit summary for the move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

I will leave this for somebody who knows the topic better, but I don't see any major controversy myself. It looks like NGRAM viewer slightly favors the proposed title, but I don't know what the sample size is. ASUKITE 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Contested technical requests

@Revirvlkodlaku WP:COMMONNAME seems to be without periods, any sources? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All their album releases include periods, so while it's likelly that they are often written about without the periods, this seems to be the proper way to spell the band's name. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better do a full RM using the above discuss button ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Bunnypranav, what's an RM? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A requested move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either click on the "discuss" link next to your original suggestion or just delete all this here and start over by following the instructions at WP:RSPM. But I'll warn you that Wikipedia doesn't really care what's on the album cover. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:OFFICIALNAME. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncontroversial and should be discussed; WP:NWFCTM. The US article is obviously going to get more hits than other country articles just due to larger readership in US, but that doesn't make it the primary topic over the others nor make it more notable. Happily888 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymousrabbit See WP:NAMECHANGES. C F A 23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you admit in the linked discussion, Oujia is the WP:COMMONNAME, even though it is a trademark. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This n-gram, which includes sources from the spirit world, favors Ouija by quite a margin. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A talkpage comment that sat there for over a year and received no replies is definitely not a consensus. Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku The current redirect at Nuda serves as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. GTrang (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so can that be changed? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beroidae should stay as the primary meaning, because the rest are just works of art. — Petr Matas 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean? Are works of art seen as having lower importance? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works of art may not have lower importance, but real-world meanings come to the mind first. For example, Mammals are a biological class, exactly like Nuda. Other meanings are only artworks and art bands and the primary meaning is the class. — Petr Matas 14:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LIrala Wait for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_14#Trans* to close first --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OKay. LIrala (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skmri there was a discussion back in 2017 leading to the current title. Even though the change is relatively small, it may be worth having a discussion to make sure this doesn't get reverted ASUKITE 15:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment on this that the hyphenation it should most definitely be Blood oxygenation level–dependent imaging with an endash since "blood oxygenation level" is a multi-word phrase and is modifying "dependent". See WP:ENDASH. I'll leave the distinction between oxygen and oxygenation to the RM. Bensci54 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that Tazeem Ali is the most common name used in reliable sports media, though a lot of those sources insert his middle name too. I am not seeing much "Taz Ali" in reliable sources except as a slang nickname. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issue with moving to Tazeem Ali. There seems to be equal use from his sides for both Taz and Tazeem. As he's a younger player it will be likely that his coverage will increase in the future, so if Taz becomes the most common used name then page title can be reconsidered. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator needed

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

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

{{subst:requested move|New name|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace New name with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 18 January 2025" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the affected page:

Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

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

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected pages, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1 (this parameter can be omitted for discussions hosted on a page that is proposed to be moved)
| new1     = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2     = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3     = New title for page 3
| reason   = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

Shortcut

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 18 January 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 January 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 18 January 2025

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025‎ (UTC)[reply]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 January 2025

– why Example (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 January 2025

– why Example (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing.[b] Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement appears on the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 114 discussions have been relisted.

January 18, 2025

  • (Discuss) – GeForce 50 series → GeForce RTX 50 series – Including "RTX" in the titles of Wikipedia articles about recent ray-tracing enabled NVIDIA GeForce generations is important for several reasons:
    * Brand Recognition: "RTX" has become synonymous with NVIDIA's ray-tracing technology. By including "RTX" in the title, readers immediately associate the product with NVIDIA's specific technology and branding.
    * Clarity and Specificity: NVIDIA uses "RTX" to distinguish its GPUs that support real-time ray tracing, AI cores and other advanced graphics features from previous generations and competitors' products. Including "RTX" helps clarify which GPUs are equipped with these advanced capabilities.
    * Marketing and Differentiation: NVIDIA heavily markets its RTX GPUs as superior for real-time ray tracing and AI-enhanced graphics processing. Including "RTX" in the title reinforces this marketing message and differentiates NVIDIA's products in a competitive market.
    * Search Engine Optimization (SEO): Including "RTX" in the title improves search engine visibility and makes it easier for users searching specifically for NVIDIA's ray-tracing enabled GPUs to find relevant information quickly.
    Overall, "RTX" is a crucial part of NVIDIA's branding strategy and helps both consumers and enthusiasts identify and understand the advanced capabilities of their GPUs.
    Casting @4202C @LengthyMer @Maxeto0910 @AP 499D25 Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 17, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Disney Channel (Japanese TV channel) → Disney Channel (Japan) – Per WP:NCBC#Disambiguation and at Tbhotch's reply on my talk page. I moved this page to the suggested title only for him/her to round-robin move it back with the rationale; per WP:NCTV., which is incorrect. Intrisit (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – History of the Jews in the United States → Jewish history in the United States – I would like to request this move as I believe the target article title is more natural and succinct. In being titled “Jewish history in the United States”, my proposed title also avoids simply referring to “the Jews”, which is not inaccurate but doesn’t reflect the history of American Jews rather than Jews in general being the primary focus of this article (although see the paragraph below). I did think about American Jewish history (currently a redirect) as an article title, but I prefer “Jewish history in the United States” as it seems to have a wider scope, for example including within scope the history of Jews in the territory of the US before American independence. That said, as I have written above, the main focus of this article is on American Jews. I’m conscious there are many other articles on Wikipedia titled “History of the Jews in X”. I similarly think these would generally be better titled as “Jewish history in X” for the same reasons of naturalness, succinctness and precision. Although I haven’t made this a multi-page move due to the scale of making such a wide-ranging change. I’d welcome more experienced editors’ views about this. I’d suggest, if this move request is not successful, that Jewish history in the United States be created as a redirect to this page. As it’s quite a natural search term. Finally, I would note my proposed title aligns with the main article on Jewish history. Rafts of Calm (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Israel–Hamas war → Gaza War – If supporting, please indicate whether you prefer "Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2023–present)". *WP:COMMONNAME: Either "Gaza war" or its variant "war in Gaza" (or both) are common among every single news source below, including Israeli sources. By contrast, "Israel-Hamas war" or its variants are no longer used at BBC and Al-Jazeera; the Guardian and Haaretz are both 10x more likely to use "Gaza war" than "Israel-Hamas war". Scholarly sources somewhat prefer "Gaza war" (even after we subtract "Israel-Gaza war" from the results). (Side note, WP:NCENPOV requires us to consider names "close enough to be considered variations of the same common name") *WP:CONSISTENT: most major modern wars are simply named after the main location: Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, Tigray War etc. Where we have two names, they are both countries: Iran-Iraq War, Russo-Ukrainian War etc. "Gaza War" is consistent with these, but "Israel-Hamas war" is not as Hamas has never been a country. *WP:PRECISION, both "Gaza war" and "Israel-Hamas war" have previously been used to refer to other conflicts (eg, 10,000 google hits for "2014 Israel-Hamas war"). Previously there has been consensus that this current war overshadows all previous wars to be the WP:PTOPIC (see here and here). "Gaza War (2023-present)" is more WP:PRECISE, but "Gaza War" is slightly more concise. *WP:NPOVN. Significant POV issues were identified with "Israel-Hamas war" in the last RM, and "Gaza War" solves that. VR (Please ping on reply) 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16, 2025

  • (Discuss) – Use of Sarum → Sarum Missal – Or Sarum Rite – While the current title has considerable prevalence, it is no common name and its prevalence is no greater than the alternatives – both of which provide considerablly greater descriptive utility, outlining the subject as a missal or rite (and a more easily recognisable ecclesiastical category of subject), rather than merely a "use of", which is a descriptively unhelpful phrase. A-Z encyclopedias would opt to format a title such as this as "Sarum, Use of" to ensure the page listing in the "S"s rather than the "U"s. While this doesn't apply here, the same principle of having the more important key word up front does still benefit drop down menu searches and the like, which, combined with the historically greater prevalence of "Sarum Missal" name format simply reinforces the merit of the move. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Discuss) – Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212 → Almohad period in the Reconquista – New proposal: Almohad–Christian conflicts - The current title is incorrect because it was not a war, it was a process/period. Before creating this article, I was looking for information about the Reconquista and found this book: * Charles, Phillips (2004). Encyclopedia of Wars (PDF). Facts On File. ISBN 9780816028511. I saw that it mentioned several "Spanish Christian–Muslim Wars" and, after finding more sources that mention this, I decided to create an article about it. However, I now think this title is incorrect for several reasons: I found some sources that talk about a war between 1172–1212 but they are still very few and probably unreliable (cited at the start of the article, probably all of them mention it because it is in the Encyclopedia of Wars), there are more sources that mention those dates to refer to the Almohad period in the Reconquista or Almohad rule in al-Andalus/Spain [10][11][12][13]. As @عبدالرحمن4132 said in the section above, the Almohads were already fighting the Christians before 1172 and continued after 1212 (although I defended the current title because I incorrectly thought it was a war). I have also noticed that there are sources that refer to the "peace treaty of 1212" as a truce and that, according to most of the sources [14][15][16][17], it actually happened in 1214, which contradicts the date. I have looked at the wars listed in the Encyclopedia of Wars (on which many of the sources that mention this "war" are based) and there are some that have inaccurate dates and even some that are not wars, but periods/processes (like this one). Some examples are: Almohad Conquest of Muslim Spain (period); Almoravid Conquest of Muslim Spain (period [18]); Spanish conquest of Chile (period [19]); Spanish-Portuguese War (1580–1589) (wrong date: different wars/campaigns [20][21]); etc. I have requested moving the article to "Almohad period in the Reconquista", but "Almohad period in the Iberian Peninsula", "Almohad period in Spain", "Almohad intervention in the Reconquista", "Almohad conflicts in the Iberian Peninsula" and others might also work. I will add and adapt the information in the article depending on the title change (if the move is successful). --RobertJohnson35 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 23:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 15, 2025

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1266766873"