Misplaced Pages

:Requested moves/Current discussions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMCD bot (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 6 January 2023 (Updating requested pagemoves list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:05, 6 January 2023 by RMCD bot (talk | contribs) (Updating requested pagemoves list)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcuts
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically soon after the discussion is closed.
To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 41 discussions have been relisted.

January 6, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Levelling-up policy of the British government → Levelling up in the United Kingdom – I suggest another move of this article, this time to "Levelling up in the United Kingdom". The "Origins" section of the article and the recent (relative to the previous move) announcement that Labour would also pursue a levelling up policy programme suggests that support for the concept extends beyond the current Levelling Up policy made by the Conservatives under their manifesto and by the Levelling Up white paper. This would future-proof the article, allowing it to extend beyond the policy of Johnson's, Truss' and Sunak's administrations. It would also have the benefit of aligning the spelling of levelling up with most primary and secondary sources (without the hyphen). Jèrriais janne (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight – The close for a prior move request for this title was vacated at move review on technical grounds even though the closer found a consensus to move (see the closed discussion immediately above). Subsequently a different closer found no consensus to move and a move review of that close found no consensus to overturn the close. In the circumstances, it is desirable to have a further discussion on the subject given that the proposed descriptive name is well sourced and the current name a euphemism. In this context, the recent renaming of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle to 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle is of interest. Also relevant is 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus where it says in the second sentence "This period of the exodus was characterized predominantly by forced expulsion.."Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 5, 2023

  • (Discuss) – TVOntario → TVO – This RM is the result of a concern from an editor, User:Earlbak, that the service was no longer known as TVOntario in any context, causing an outdated name to be perpetuated in Knowledge Graph, etc. (See above section.) News sources in Canada are mixed but show an inclination for TVO with some exceptions; note that sometimes Misplaced Pages keeping an old name keeps it around in the press. Since at least 2006, the TV channel has been known as TVO in legal documents with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and while TVOntario seemed to persist as a shorthand name for its parent, this was not the case the last time the CRTC renewed its licence in 2015. Pageviews for TVOntario are just under double that of TV Osaka, the next most-viewed television topic of those linked at TVO. No other topics are known as TVO directly (usually an acronym for something else), so it may be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Opening this to RM to at least gather additional feedback. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Deadlight (disambiguation) → Deadlight – WP:NOPRIMARY. Originally "deadlight" was a redirect to Operation Deadlight, the Allied scuttling of all the surrendered German U-Boots in 1945, when it should really have redirected to porthole. But anyway, in 2012 a video game was inserted where the redirect had been. This was a game that sold 53,000 copies, ironically the same number as the current circa 53,000 ships in the world merchant fleet of the top 15 ship-owning countries, but the game was last updated in 2016 and can't claim to be primary topic over a common nautical term and real world object. However not claiming that the porthole cover is overwhelming primary either. There are some other entertainment uses also. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ghaggar-Hakra River → Ghaggar River – Because: *In a Google Books search, Ghaggar river (23,000) gets more hits than Ghaggar-Hakra river (5,040). Ghaggar river also gets more hits than Hakra river (8,410). Added later: "Ghaggar river" (in quotes) gives 5,600 hits, more than either "Ghaggar-Hakra river" (2,190) or "Hakra river" (3,250), or the both of them combined. *Among books published by scholarly publishers, Ghaggar river (1,080) again gets more results than Ghaggar-Hakra river (312) or Hakra river (659). *More RS use Ghaggar for the river. Take for example Encyclopædia Britannica, which uses “Ghaggar River” and mentions “Ghagghar” as an alternative name spelling. *The river part of the river (that is, the portion which is a body of water) is mostly limited to the “Ghaggar” part, the “Hakra” portion is a dried up channel and since the Thar desert receives very little rain during the monsoon, this portion remains mostly dry even when the Ghaggar portion swells with water during the wet season. This source cited on the article, for instance, uses “Ghaggar-Hakra” to refer to the paleochannel, but “Ghaggar River” when referring to the river. This one clearly uses Ghaggar for the river primarily and uses Hakra only as an alternative name used beyond Ottu Barrage (in the desert). *Like articles of other rivers with multiple names, like Brahmaputra, Sutlej and Neelum, this article should be titled Ghaggar River, with Hakra mentioned as alternative name in the lead sentence, and then Ghaggar-Hakra or Hakra used in the body whenever a source mentions such name, especially when talking about the IVC. *In the areas that the river flows through, it is known as Ghaggar in the densely populated fertile Punjab Plain of northern Haryana and southern Punjab, and as Hakra when it is dried-up in the barren, scarcely populated Thar/Cholistan desert along the India-Pakistan border. So, in the areas it flows through, there are many more people who call the river Ghaggar. Google Trends also reflects this, “ghaggar river” remains the most searched term from 2004-present, more than “hakra river”, “ghaggar-hakra river” and “ghaggar hakra river”, with the top subregions being the states of India where it flows through. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Apple I → Apple 1 – The computer was only ever called "Apple 1" in the original manuals and all other original product literature that I've been able to find. The "Apple I" designation appears to be a later retronym derived from the Apple II after its appearance a couple of years later. The current "Apple I" page and "Apple 1" redirect page need to be swapped. Cjs (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – MagSafe (iPhone) → MagSafe (wireless charger) – The current article name makes a false impression that it's limited to charging iPhones (or worse, that MagSafe is a phone instead of an accessory). It's not limited to charging phones; Apple Watches and AirPods work as well with this wireless charging. It's better to use a more descriptive name for this article. And I think "(wireless charger)" as a tag is concise enough for what the subject does. Explorer09 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Stakhanov, Ukraine → Kadiivka – Kadiivka is the official name for this city in Ukraine. It is internationally recognised as part of this country regardless of what some others may say. The last RM was in December 2018, and a lot has changed in English-language sources regarding Ukrainian place names. In Kadiivka's case, the official name appears to be more common since then. Searching "Kadiivka Ukraine" and clicking on the news section on Google, I get articles for several notable English-speaking media outlets. I will give examples from all of those which have Misplaced Pages pages in the first two pages of results. There is the BBC , Anadolu Agency , Ukrinform (obviously) , Yahoo! News , The Guardian , Al Jazeera , Telewizja Polska , The Moscow Times , The Globe and Mail , Daily Express and France 24 . 11 (10 excluding Ukrainian state-owned Ukrinform) notable media outlets use Kadiivka clearly and directly to refer to the city. As for "Stakhanov Ukraine", there are some as well, but they do not give relevance to the name itself. See Al Jazeera ("a hotel in Stakhanov – the Russian name for Kadiivka – was destroyed"; Kadiivka is first mentioned before) , Yahoo! News ("in Kadiyivka (Stakhanov), Luhansk Oblast") , CNN ("Stakhanov" is only mentioned when citing Russian state-owned TASS, Kadiivka is used two times earlier in normal writing) , the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (no comment) , The Moscow Times (only when citing LPR puppet Leonid Pasechnik) , GlobalSecurity.org , The New York Times (I can't read the article, but I could see from Google News that it refers to it as "Using the old Soviet name for the city , Stakhanov") , EA WorldView (again only citing TASS) and Al Arabiya ("in the city of Kadiivka (Stakhanov)") . I got 9 media outlets, but only one actually used Stakhanov to refer to the city (GlobalSecurity.org, apart of the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN). Obviously, Google results may vary for people, depending on their country, search and other factors, but the trend that Kadiivka is currently more used in recent English-speaking sources is fairly evident, and I invite any editors to attempt to prove otherwise through the methods they may prefer. We can consider other websites to discuss WP:COMMONNAME, such as Google Scholar or Google Books. However, this is difficult as "Stakhanov" refers to a multitude of other things. Even the search "stakhanov" ukraine (since 2019) barely gives results referring to the city . Personally, I deem it difficult to employ these two websites for this RM, so I will not take them into consideration; other editors here may do so if they manage to find a way to accurately provide information on the way this city is now called in English-language sources there. I will add that through this move, the disambiguation ", Ukraine" in the title will not be necessary anymore, which is nice in my opinion. I also want to state that when Novohrad-Volynskyi was renamed to Zviahel last year, the move was carried out immediately. This city is in western Ukraine. For some reason this did not take place here, even though the name was changed back in 2016. Some of the cited arguments in the last RM was that "Ukraine does not control this town". However, Kadiivka stands firmly within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. I see no reason why we should apply different treatments for cities ultimately in Ukraine. And we surely owe illegal imperialists no leverage in Misplaced Pages. So I request that this article be renamed to the city's legal and official name. Super Ψ Dro 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Subhumans (British band) → Subhumans – Currently Subhumans is a redirect to the subhuman disambiguation page. It seems to me that this band is the most common use of the term "Subhumans", with most of the other entries on that page being for the singular use of the term. (The first entry on that page is "Any of the extinct members of the clade Hominina other than Homo..." and I don't think the term "subhuman" is used this way in the scientific community very often.) The only other entry specifically for the plural use of "subhuman" is the Canadian band, who are not nearly as well known. Obviously a disambiguation header to Subhuman would be added after the move. R. fiend (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

January 4, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Clog → Clogs – The article itself refers to them exclusively in the plural, and most sources I found about the shoes refer to them exclusively in the plural. This seems to be a rare situation where the plural is the more common term. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Asphalt → Bitumen – Admittedly first time doing this, so sought advice on Discord. Let me know if i should be doing something else. However i'd like to propose a move request for this article. The article is of good quality, however the content it is discussing is not what the title actually is. This seems to be due to a merge about a decade ago, where "Asphalt" and "Bitumen" were combined. Thus the article here near exclusively refers to "Asphalt", but the content it is discussing under this name is "Bitumen". Asphalt and Bitumen are not the same. It is even possible to get Asphalts which contain no Bitumen, but generally Bitumen is a component of Asphalt. Asphalt exclusively applies to "a mixture of aggregates, binder and filler" ] - it already has its own article under Asphalt Concrete ] (which itself could likely be simplified to be just Asphalt once this article is moved, or at least have "Asphalt" redirect to "Asphalt concrete") Bitumen is a binder. This article exclusively refers to a binder, which it names "Asphalt" - but Asphalt is not a binder, it is a mix as above. We can see this in numerous references on the article itself. Its also worth noting other binders exist - thus it is possible for an Asphalt to contain no Bitumen, and thus for an Asphalt to contain no "Asphalt" as referred to in this article which is naturally illogical. Making this change would also allow the quality of the article to be improved. For example "Although asphalt typically makes up only 4 to 5 percent (by weight) of the pavement mixture, as the pavement's binder, it is also the most expensive part of the cost of the road-paving material." could be updated to a more accurate "Although Bitumen typically makes up only 4 to 5 percent (by weight) of the pavement mixture in Asphalt, as the pavement's binder, it is also the most expensive part of the cost of the road-paving material." It seems some of the references have confused the two, or potentially is an American simplification. However in industry, especially internationally, these are distinct and should not be confused. One source here ] for example suggests it is simply an Americanism which doesnt apply to the rest of the world. Thus this article should really use "Bitumen" as the description as that is internationally recognised (even by Americans) with maybe a note in the article lead that in the US it may sometimes be called "Asphalt". That said, sources in US industry can still be found where they refer to this articles topic as Bitumen simply to avoid confusion with Asphalt Concrete as thats commonly shortened to just "Asphalt" as well. For example, here ] Shell discusses "The Right Bitumen Solution for Top-Performance Asphalt" which is naturally confusing if we adjust it as per the Wiki's description to state "The Right Asphalt Solution for Top-Performance Asphalt" As far as i can tell, in US industry "Bitumen" is referred to as "Liquid Asphalt cement" ] and this can also be simplified to "Asphalt". However the key thing here is that this description places it as a Cement for Asphalt - which is correct, as Cement is the Binder in Concrete, much as Bitumen is the Binder in Asphalt. So it seems even in US industry, the term "Asphalt" to refer to "Bitumen" is simply a simplification, which given many sources are non technical - would make sense. So to summarise, this article should be moved to "Bitumen". All references to "Asphalt" should be changed to "Bitumen" as per international standards, with an addition in the lead along the lines of "Sometimes referred to as Liquid Asphalt Cement in the US, though often shortened to Asphalt". New references can be added to support and explain this change, with potential discussion as to whether "Asphalt" should redirect here, to "Asphalt Concrete", or to a disambiguation page listing the US and international potential uses. Garfie489 (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cunard Line → Cunard – I had moved this as uncontroversial in November, but it has been challenged and moved back per the section above, so now requesting it formally. This seems quite clearcut to me... the WP:COMMONNAME for this cruise liner is simply "Cunard", not "Cunard Line", as evidenced by for example BBC News, The Guardian, CNN, book titles etc. There may be one or two using "Cunard Line", but certainly it looks to me from sources that more use the straightforward single-word title. Further more an ngram shows around a 10× level of occurrence for Cunard vs Cunard Line (more than enough to offset the fact that the former is a match even when the latter is a match), when searching on "Cunard"/"Cunard Line", and also when searching on "Cunard ship"/"Cunard Line ship" (any case). WP:OFFICIALNAME says we should not give extra weight to what the company itself uses, but actually even Cunard themselves generally just call themselves Cunard, e.g. on the front page of their website it doesn't say "Cunard Line" anywhere; it's only when you get most of the way down the "about us" page that the term appears. Finally, the proposed title is also more WP:CONCISE, which is another policy tick. I don't really know why this move was reverted, but certainly it seems policy favours "Cunard". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian rule of the West Bank – More than a renaming, I propose an expansion of the scope of this article. It was previously named "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank", which didn't make sense since the occupation lasted 1948-1950, but the entirety of Jordanian presence lasted 1948-1967, so it was renamed "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank". However, this also doesn't really make sense, as it limited the scope of the article to the 1950 annexation act. So, instead of creating a new article dealing with the scope of the Jordanian 1948-1967 presence, why not just rename this article to "Jordanian rule of the West Bank", where the 1950 act of annexation would have a dedicated and detailed section. It should be noted that this would prove a controversial renaming/repurposing, as it would lent arguments to rename Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. So, it might be better after all to create a new article named "Jordanian rule of the West Bank" instead. These are two options the discussion should focus on. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

January 3, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Gwon → Kwon – Move back to Kwon as per WP:COMMONNAME. The romanization Kwon is clearly favoured over Gwon. According to WP:NCKO, names should be should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources instead of automatically using Revised Romanization. Viewing the list of notable people on the page, 100% of the post-1945 figures use the romanization of “Kwon”. A 2009 study done by the National Institute of the Korean Language shows that a majority of people with this surname have translated it as Kwon compared to Gwon (85.5% for Kwon, 6.9% for Gwon as seen on page 63 of the pdf). A Google NGram contrasting Kwon and Gwon shows that Kwon has a huge lead over Gwon. Looking at the pageview analysis, moving the page from Kwon to Gwon in January 2020 caused the page views to go down after a page move to more uncommon name. The page views still have not recovered to the page views before the page move. CountHacker (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions → Twitter journalist suspensions incident – Hopefully I'm doing this right; I've never actually requested a RM before, but I'm doing so at Silver seren's suggestion, and also to avoid any perception of bias if I did it myself (since I'm the article's primary author). This article was originally called Thursday Night Masscare because that phrase trended on Twitter as a description of the suspensions, and was later repeated by journalists. But it was suggested by several editors that the title was inappropriate, and it was moved to its current article title "December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions". (It was suggested the move was done prematurely and that the discussion was ended inappropriately, but that's neither here nor there.) Several objections were raised to the current title, including that it's not entirely accurate (some of the suspensions took place in the days before and after December 15), and that it's awkwardly worded and not search-friendly. I floated the possibilities of "December 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy" or "December 2022 Twitter suspensions" "Twitter journalist suspensions controversy" or "Twitter journalist suspensions incident" and in the talk page description above there seemed to be some consensus for the latter title (omitting the word "controversy" to avoid WP:WEASEL concerns), so I'm formally requesting a move to that new title. — Hunter Kahn 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Most livable cities → City quality of life indices – Issues with current name 1. The article is about indeces. The current name is rather confusing as it suggests that the article is going to take a stance on the subjective measure of what is most livable. 2. It's not only about the top ranked cities. Many rankings rank a wide variety of cities and show both the most livable and least livable cities. What you focus on depends on the use of the index. 3. livability is not the most suitable word. A livable city is defined to be a city fit to be lived in. This suggests that livability is about the most basic needs, however most (if not all) of the rankings have subjective quality of life measures in them that could vary across culture and other factors. I would also argue that quality of life is a more well understood term than livability and better represents the subjective nature of the indices. Use of the term livability and quality of life/living is somewhat split between the different indices so in my opinion neither are more recognisable than the other, however quality of life has the precision advantage I mentioned earlier. Philipp.governale (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) → Kingdom of Samaria – The current title is a poor choice based on the standing precepts of WP:NCDAB, with specific regards to the point that natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Kingdom of Samaria already directs here, so this page is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the term "Kingdom of Samaria" is common enough in scholarly literature that it clearly ticks all the boxes to be preferable to a parenthetical approach - not least the current parenthetical approach, which ironically uses the name "Samaria" to disambiguate the base term, and in doing so makes plain that the latter is actually the name with the greater precision (as well as potential concision) in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Brookfield Asset Management → Brookfield Corporation – Brookfield recently executed a corporate action (third party news article here, company article here) where the parent company was renamed from Brookfield Asset Management Inc. with ticker TSX:BAM.A to Brookfield Corporation with ticker TSX:BN, while simultaneously spinning out a new company named Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. with ticker TSX:BAM. Given Brookfield Corporation is the ultimate parent, should this article be named as such? (and any required consequential edits to the article itself... of which I know the ticker in the info box needs to change, but not sure what else) CDB-Man (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 1, 2023

  • (Discuss) – Kairi Sane → Kairi (wrestler) – The current ring name Kairi passes WP:PWBIO ("Have appeared consistently over the course of 3 months or held a championship for a combined reign of 30 days"). She is IWGP Women's Champion for 40+ days and she wrestles as Kairi since March 2022. Her last notable appearance as Kairi Sane was in July 2020. Kairi has become her common name in PW sources. Mann Mann (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Extinction Rebellion → Extinction Rebellion UK – Can I propose that the title be renamed to specifically focus on Extinction Rebellion UK. At present this does seem to be the de-facto focus of the article, entirely built around the UK "wing"/branch of the organisation and not specifically focused on the main global group name and aims. This distinction is likely to become more of an issue as the UK arm have now, at least for the moment, sworn off of "disruption" as the main tactic unlike XR in other countries which may be hard to explain unless this distinction between global and Extinction Rebellion UK is implemented. Apache287 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Austro-Hungarian crown → Austro-Hungarian krone – In September, an editor moved our article on this Austro-Hungarian currency from "Austro-Hungarian krone" to "... crown", arguing that the latter is the neutral nomenclature, common in English, which does not favour the language of either part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, I think that such a subjective reason does not override the importance of a stable title, and therefore ask that the stable title of "Austro-Hungarian krone" be restored, unless there are reliable sources which establish "krone crown" as the dominant English-language name. To be fair, I distinctly remember "crown" being more dominant in Ngram, but I would still appreciate more reliable sources before we keep it at "crown". Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

December 31, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Principle of opportunity → Discretionary prosecution – The current title is a literal translation from European languages, which rarely works across differing legal systems. This topic concerns the discretion inherent in a prosecutor to decide whether or not to carry forward with a prosecution given the ability to find an accused, the amount of evidence, motive, and other factors. In French, it's called opportunité des poursuites (lit.: 'opportunity for prosecution') which at least is a little closer than the German term (lit:'Principle of opportunity') which conveys almost nothing in English. Translation of the European term into English depends somewhat on context: in running text, esp. if concerning a particular case, "the advisability or appropriateness of prosecution" are sometimes seen; but when discussing it as a general principle or concept in English, most frequent is discretionary prosecution. (Cf. mandatory prosecution). Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive → 2022 Ukrainian Kherson counteroffensive – In the past, in this talk page, this title was rejected shortly after the liberation of Kherson city because there were reports of Ukrainian incursions to the other bank of the Dnipro, so the counteroffensive could be deemed as still ongoing. More than a month later, it is clear this has not been the case. Discussion about the liberation of the rest of the south of Ukraine comes from a possible counteroffensive by Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, specially to Melitopol. The front around Kherson is and will be static for a while, it appears. Therefore, I think we should define this counteroffensive as exclusively aiming for Kherson. Otherwise, that it has already ended and that it was a Ukrainian victory as the infobox says, is nonsense. Super Ψ Dro 12:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

December 30, 2022

Elapsed listings

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) – Air Inter Flight 148 → Air Inter Flight 5148 – Noting the move above and the revert taken on my move, I apologize for the administrators if this may as well be getting rather repetitive but I would like to post a move request to Air Inter Flight 5148, as mentioned in the sourcing above, several sources (including French sources) mention this accident as flight 5148 and not 148, even today: , , . I think that the callsign (AIR INTER 148 DELTA ALPHA) in the final report might have interfered in interpreting the flight number (IT5148) from the beginning, hereby the confusion. This may have caught on and not been fixed until found somewhat recently. Callsigns and flight numbers can very well be different. Thanks! Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – List of genocides by death toll → List of genocides – This is the only list of genocides, and the additional descriptor serves no purpose. The emphasis on death toll defies WP:DUEWEIGHT, as it may be inferred as diminishing the significance of, for example, a larger proportion of a smaller group killed. The emphasis on both absolute numbers and proportions is inappropriate anyway, as the UN convention defines genocide as intentional destruction of a group “in whole or in part,” and of a group “as such,” and only two of the five acts that are potentially genocidal are “killing” or “calculated to bring about its physical destruction” in whole or in part (see Genocide Convention#Definition of genocide). The ideas that only killing or only complete extermination can constitute legal genocide are wrong, and our title shouldn’t imply either.  —Michael Z. 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Progressive cavity pump → Progressing cavity pump – Plenty of justification in my article edit Macca2023 (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC) :The definitions of both words could be compared to decide which one is more appropriate. :1. The cavities, having become fluid-filled, are literally moving forward (or upward) and maintain the same volume (i.e. a positive displacement pump) :2. The cavities are NOT increasing, growing, escalating, or accelerating. :Therefore, 'progressing' is the better choice. :The pump had a French inventor (René Moineau) and "pompes à cavités progressant" translates to progressing or progressive cavity pump. The French word "progressant", by itself, translates to progressing. :Manufacturers that have adopted "progressing" include Artemis, ChampionX, MANTL, NOV Mono, OilLift, PCM, SLB, and Weatherford. :In Reference 1 of the current Misplaced Pages article (Michael W. Volk's book) the author literally uses 'progressing'. I have updated this reference to the 3rd edition and on Page 22 one will find "Progressing Cavity Pump". :Reference 2 is from a web page that no longer exists. A paragraph heading "Progressive Cavity Pumps" is followed by three other paragraphs that begin with "The progressing cavity pump..." :In the External link, Food and Agriculture Organization guide, Water lifting devices by Peter L. Fraenkel, the author uses 'progressive' perhaps as a personal preference, but water pumps for irrigation is a tiny segment of the PCP market. There are far better references including some of the textbooks I have listed in the edit. Macca2023 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Modulo (mathematics) → ? – @Nnadigoodluck, GeoffreyT2000, Coastside, Tea2min, Oleg Alexandrov, Michael Hardy, Jochen Burghardt, Pdecalculus, Ost316, Miaumee, and KelleyCook: The above move discussion appears to be rather unclear and essentially included only 2 participants. I have therefore pinged the participants in the previous discussion and the page's top editors with the hope of procuring a rather more rigorous discussion and clear consensus. Apologies that the following reason is rather extensive and badly structured; my main opinion for what should be done is in the bottom two paragraphs, with the top paragraph being an alternative move request if my preferred argument proves to be against concensus. I have put notices on the talk pages of the other articles listed at Modulo (disambiguation), where it is not automatically done by a bot. The most easily presentable issue is that we have had this page moved to 'Modulo (mathematics)', in a way which suggests that it is a primary topic out of the three pages listed on Modulo (disambiguation)#Mathematics. I have doubts as to the validity of this, which I'll discuss later, but assuming that this is the case, then we must ask ourselves: is it the primary topic over the other two (non-mathematical) entries on the dab page? Pageview statistics, at time of writing, show that this page has a comparable view-count to Ferrari Modulo (slightly above, but not much; 73,518 vs. 67,072 since a month after the above move), and distinctly higher views than Módulo (73,518 vs. 1,178 since March 2020). However, if we aggregate (average) the pageviews from all three of the mathematical articles, this gives us 1 , 544 , 981 + 1 , 166 , 346 + 73 , 518 3 = 928 , 281 2 3 {\displaystyle {\frac {1,544,981+1,166,346+73,518}{3}}=928,281{\frac {2}{3}}} views since March 2020, which is markedly higher than both of the other uses. This strongly suggests that the mathematical articles as a subset form the primary topic, and thus (if we agree with the apparent outcome of the last discussion) it still seems sensible that this page should be the primary topic. With a risk of creating some controversy, I do wish to disagree with the previous discussion which resulted in us classifying this article as the primary topic for the mathematical uses of 'Modulo'. This argument was slightly mentioned before, by User:Tea2min, but it was not, in my view, very well-presented. I disagree with Teahouse's assertion that this article is a broad-concept article; it seems like more of a article about a word; it does not particularly describe the shared features of the uses of 'Modulo' and how these are all versions of the same concept (in the manner of other broad-concept articles like particle and football), but rather appears to be a description of each of the usages, with possibly some detail of their relationship with each-other but not their relation to an overall broad-concept (this is the manner of articles about words, such as Macedonia (terminology)). The difference is very slight, but the guideline that broad-concepts are primary topics I don't think ought to be applied to word articles. I do, therefore, propose that we should move this article to 'Modulo (word)', or possibly move this back to the old title, if people think that is more appropriate. In addition to this theoretical argument of significance, pageview statistics do strongly suggest that (even with the current title bias) Modulo operation and Modular arithmetic are both much more popular articles to read than this, with 1,544,981 and 1,166,346 views respectively, against this article's 73,518 views. Having moved this page, we come to the question of whether there is a primary topic, or if we should redirect this page's current title to the disambiguation page. It is my view that Modulo operation is the primary topic, and we should redirect both 'Modulo (mathematics)' and 'Modulo' to it, with a {{redirect}} hatnote. My reasons for this are as follows. Pageview statistics show 'Modulo operation' and 'Modular arithmetic' as overwhelmingly more popular than all other articles in question. Of these two, I think that Modulo operation (which has the slightly higher view-rate) is a natural disambiguation — it is normally actually referred to as 'Modulo', but titled differently on Misplaced Pages for clarity — whereas 'Modular arithmetic' is not typically referred to by the term 'Modulo', although it's full name is nonetheless closely related. In addition, pageviews do show a consistent and long-standing favour to 'Modulo operation', at 4,416,430 versus 3,218,039 since the start of monitoring in July 2015. Again sorry for the length of the my discussion point, and please can some people comment anyway and form a consensus! — WT79 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – GMB Class 71 → ? – proposal a) NSB Class 71, proposal b) Flytoget Class 71, both on the grounds of consistency with other articles and because "GMB" doesn't satisfy the policy against ambiguous abbreviations in article names. I prefer proposal (a), because the units were ordered by NSB and it's consistent with other articles on Norwegian locomotives and multiple units. Proposal (b) uses the current name of the operator, which was separated from NSB in 2001, and is thus closer to common use – but it's my less-preferred option because it could establish a precedent of renaming articles every time the operator changes. XAM2175  20:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) → Galicia Division – WP:COMMONNAME: Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that Galicia Division is the most commonly used name (The difference is easier to see when zooming in on post-1995 or post-2010). Ngram doesn’t allow testing long names like 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), but obviously that would be less common than the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, and still less common than 14th Waffen Grenadier Division, which is compared in the search links above. Mentions in the standard histories of Ukraine: * Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. ** Division Galizien ** the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, known as the Division Galizien ** the Division ** Division Galizien * Serhy Yekelchyk (2007), Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation. ** Galicia Division ** SS Volunteer Galicia Division ** the Galicia Division ** the division * Anna Reid (1999), Borderland: a journey through the history of Ukraine. ** SS division ‘SS Galicia’ ** the division * Paul Robert Magocsi (1996), A History of Ukraine. ** Galicia Division ** SS Galicia Division (German: Waffen SS Division Galizien) ** The Dyviziia, as it was known in Ukrainian ** the Galicia Division ** Galicia Division * Orest Subtelny (1988), Ukraine: A History, 1st edition. ** Galician Division ** SS volunteer Galicia Division ** SS Volunteer Galician Division ** the Galicia Division ** the Galician Division ** Galicia Division ** Galicia Division I couldn’t find any mention in Andrew Wilson (historian) (2002), The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation.  —Michael Z. 22:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sleep hollow → Sleepy hollow (illness) – Most references I've viewed shows this subject/topic as using the word "Sleepy" with a "y" at the end. Higher quality references use "Sleepy" but there are others that use "Sleep". Although this illness has been disproven as something unique, likely either an airborne or water chemical contaminant, using the colloquial term is appropriate. Certainly would not mind some MEDRS editors to have a look and drop an opinion either way. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:Requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there. Category:
Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Current discussions Add topic