Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a discussion-link-first format and in table format. 55 discussions have been relisted.

October 15, 2024

[edit]

October 14, 2024

[edit]

October 13, 2024

[edit]

Prosperosity (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 08:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12, 2024

[edit]
  • Ubuntu → Ubuntu (computer system) – (Discuss) – No clear WP:Primary topic. Page views are 1561 for the computer system, 798 for the philosophy (Ubuntu (philosophy)). The philosophy also likely has more long term significance. Edit: this used to be the case until the philosophy was bold moved to Ubuntu philosophy and an RM that moved this from Ubuntu (operating system) to the current title. I’ve reverted the bold move per WP:RMUM as its common name is Ubuntu. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese word for "crisis" → Chinese word for crisis – (Discuss) – The quotes should be removed and the word crisis should be italicized instead using the display title template. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Ferris wheels → List of tallest Ferris wheels – (Discuss) – There is no list of all buildings or office centers, all amusement parks, etc., just as the idea of ​​including all Ferris wheels in the world in one list is absurd. I believe the article should be renamed, as the number of Ferris wheels in the world is absolutely huge, likely measured in thousands, and including all of them in a list is simply impossible! And not necessary, as there is no encyclopedic significance in all Ferris wheels ranging from 10-20 meters in height, from every small town, amusement park, or even shopping center... Perhaps the original idea of ​​the article was the TOP of the tallest Ferris wheels in the world, but then the title simply does not correspond to the content and the article needs to be renamed. The only, in my opinion, controversial point is what should be the threshold for including a wheel in the list. My opinion - definitely not less than 80 meters (possibly more - 90 or even 100), otherwise there will be too many wheels and it will be difficult to maintain the relevance of the article. As an argument, I would like to refer to the sale of 88-meter-high wheels on alibaba, which means that wheels of this height can be mass-produced and installed all over the world for a relatively low price for such a giant. Another example - I tried to find a source to confirm the Phnom Penh Eye wheel from Cambodia (from this article), 88 meters high, and found only one very questionable source, and it was not even possible to determine if such a wheel exists or not... Therefore, there is a corresponding problem with wheels up to 80 meters in height, while there are no such problems with wheels ranging from 90-100 meters in height. Aqob (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Aqob (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seon (Korean name) → Sun (Korean name) – (Discuss) – Proposing moving to "Sun (Korean name)" per the wording in the article itself stating that "Sun" is the more common romanization of the surname: "In a study by the National Institute of the Korean Language based on 2007 application data for South Korean passports, it was found that 60.7% of people with this surname spelled it in Latin letters as Sun in their passports, while another 39.2% spelled it as Seon.[1]" For the syllable in a given name, Wikipedia has 10 name articles that romanize the syllable as "Sun" in their article titles, and 4 name articles that romanize it as "Seon".

References

  1. ^ 성씨 로마자 표기 방안: 마련을 위한 토론회 [Plan for romanisation of surnames: a preparatory discussion]. National Institute of the Korean Language. 25 June 2009. p. 61. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
RachelTensions (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 11, 2024

[edit]

October 10, 2024

[edit]

October 9, 2024

[edit]

October 8, 2024

[edit]
  • Walton-on-the-Hill → Walton-on-the-Hill, Surrey – (Discuss) – No clear primary topic, the Surrey one has 310 views but the Staffordshire one has 44 and the Liverpool one has 1,616. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tedcastles Oil Products → Top Oil – (Discuss) – This business has not been known as Tedcastles Oil Products since the 1990s, and has been known as Top Oil since 1998. This is its common name, by which most people would recognise it. Most people would never have heard of Tedcastles Oil Products. The business is owned by Irving Oil, so it's not even that the current article title reflects its owner's name. Gatepainter (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fajr-3 → Fajr-3 (artillery rocket) – (Discuss) – Per page views, specifically between the current de facto primary topic and Fajr-3 (missile), there is WP:NOPRIMARY. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turkish Women's Football Super League → Women's Football Super League – (Discuss) – The closest title to this name is Women's Super League, while this is officially called the Women's Football Super League. There is no other "Women's Football Super League", why should the title have Turkish in it. So it's redundant. I think the official name will fit better. Here is an official source referring to this name. Beshogur (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Czech Republic → Czechia – (Discuss) – 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) — Relisting. BD2412 T 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tico of the Seven Seas → Tico & Friends – (Discuss) – English title… VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gene White → Gene White (basketball player) – (Discuss) – Between this pair of stubs (Gene White and Gene White (American football)) I am not seeing a primary topic, particularly considering the existence of Eugene White and the potential for confusion with Jean White (disambiguation). BD2412 T 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitachi Zosen Corporation → Kanadevia Corporation – (Discuss) – This is because the company name changed on October 1, 2024. Timexdx (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. A. Rahim (Keralan politician) → A. A. Rahim (????) – (Discuss) – Okay, so this is partly my fault. I spotted that this article was previously residing at A. A. Rahim (politician), which wasn't sufficient to disambiguate from A. A. Rahim who was also a politician, so moved it to A. A. Rahim (Keralan politician). However, I was ignorant to the fact that Kollam is also in Kerala, so I still haven't fully disambiguated it. I'm sure moving this to something fully disambiguated is not controversial, however, not really sure where best to move it to now. --woodensuperman 12:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dendy → Dendy (disambiguation) – (Discuss) – Clear primary topic by pageviews, with massively more than the theater chain, or any of the people (though that would fall under WP:PTM). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elapsed listings

[edit]
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.

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) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

[edit]
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

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]

Malformed requests

[edit]
See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

[edit]
See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

[edit]
References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions_(alt)&oldid=1251277352"