For reproducibility of data. You can run this on stat machines:

analytics-mysql dewiki -e "select log_namespace, log_title, page_namespace, page_title  from logging join log_search on ls_log_id = log_id and ls_field = 'associated_rev_id' join revision on ls_value = rev_id join
page on rev_page = page_id where log_type = 'move' order by log_id desc limit 10000;" > dewiki_moves

Then:

awk '$1 == $3' dewiki_moves | wc -l

The major points against this would be:

• Moving articles between namespaces is the same system, and it feels wrong to say "rename your article out of the Drafts namespace".
• Subpages are just pages with a path-separator in their name, but it might make more conceptual sense to people used to filesystems to think of "moving" a page under another, rather than renaming it.

That said, for a move within a namespace and not involving subpages, I'd agree that "rename" is likely more intuitive.

In T429657#12035957, @DLynch wrote:

Moving articles between namespaces is the same system, and it feels wrong to say "rename your article out of the Drafts namespace".

I think on a conceptual level English Wikipedia could, of course, continue to call it ‘moving’ if they want to, either in all circumstances or in some specific circumstances, but it is undoubtedly a problem for common localisation, since other languages already do not use their equivalent of ‘move’ for this sense, and it leads to situations like https://translatewiki.net/?diff=14077787 where someone is translating ‘move’ literally while entire interface translates it to ‘rename’.

In T429657#12036443, @stjn wrote:

In T429657#12035957, @DLynch wrote:

Moving articles between namespaces is the same system, and it feels wrong to say "rename your article out of the Drafts namespace".

I think on a conceptual level English Wikipedia could, of course, continue to call it ‘moving’ if they want to, either in all circumstances or in some specific circumstances, but it is undoubtedly a problem for common localisation, since other languages already do not use their equivalent of ‘move’ for this sense, and it leads to situations like https://translatewiki.net/?diff=14077787 where someone is translating ‘move’ literally while entire interface translates it to ‘rename’.

Some other languages. In Hebrew, it's more like "move". In Russian and Dutch, it's more like "rename".

That said, I totally support the idea and Amir S.'s rationale. I very often coach people who start localizing the interface into new languages, and this is one of the difficult words—and it's difficult for new English users, too. I understand the historical rationale for the word "move", but times change, and some terminology can be changed, too.

I'll also support changing the terminology within English-language wikis (and in Hebrew, if anyone cares).

If the renaming is done, other languages can choose whether to stick with something like "move" or change to "rename".

In T429657#12035957, @DLynch wrote:

The major points against this would be:

• Moving articles between namespaces is the same system, and it feels wrong to say "rename your article out of the Drafts namespace".
• Subpages are just pages with a path-separator in their name, but it might make more conceptual sense to people used to filesystems to think of "moving" a page under another, rather than renaming it.

That said, for a move within a namespace and not involving subpages, I'd agree that "rename" is likely more intuitive.

FTR, based on the data. These are not majority of the renames.

Allow me to disagree. Why now when this could be done long time ago, and currently almost all of the wiki users have been familiarized with the terminology of "move". And also, would the change from "move" to "rename" be truly guaranteed to not break any "move/rename"-related functionality, because I believe the functionality is used heavily in wiki infrastructure? And also, what icon would be used if let say the "move" becomes "rename"? I am not sure if the design options for "rename" icon would be anything better than "move".

Again, please ask opinions from various wiki communities first before finalizing "move > rename", because this is a big change that every Wikimedians should be aware of.

From my view, it's more difficult to use the term "rename" in languages that don't have a suffix for "doing something again". For example, in Malay, it would turn into "namakan semula" which is just "name it again" instead of a one word "rename" like English. This is way longer than just the original "pindah" (move) (the concept of moving locations is probably more universal than "renaming" something). It will definitely mess up the interface in Malay because of the length of the term used. Long-syllable languages like Kadazandusun will also be longer (pungaranan kawagu) instead of the shorter "poundolihon". I think framing the term "move" to relate it to moving "houses" is much more easier to explain to newbies (especially indigenous communities who still practice semi-nomadic lifestyles by literally moving their houses to another place). I personally hope it won't be changed but just explained more clearly to people.

In T429657#12038286, @Hakimi97 wrote:

Allow me to disagree. Why now when this could be done long time ago, and currently almost all of the wiki users have been familiarized with the terminology of "move".

Because we want newcomers to be less confused. A wiki is not just the old-timers.

And also, would the change from "move" to "rename" be truly guaranteed to not break any "move/rename"-related functionality, because I believe the functionality is used heavily in wiki infrastructure?

The change only affects labels of the action and by nature can't break anything on the technical side since for example the name is different in different languages. Of course there are some aspect that has to stay as "move" (for example protection) fir a while and that could be a bit confusing but I'd argue the current state is more confusing to people. Plus we have had renamed like this before. I do remember rename of "image" to "file" and "save" to "publish" in edit forms.

And also, what icon would be used if let say the "move" becomes "rename"?

To be defined.

Again, please ask opinions from various wiki communities first before finalizing "move > rename", because this is a big change that every Wikimedians should be aware of.

It is the very first point in the bullet list I wrote. I already reached out in one place. Planning to do more soon.

In T429657#12038328, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Because we want newcomers to be less confused. A wiki is not just the old-timers.

How do you measure whether the newcomers would be more or less confused with the word "move"? Do you have any additional data or metric across different language editions of wikis to support this statement?

In T429657#12038326, @Ultron90 wrote:

From my view, it's more difficult to use the term "rename" in languages that don't have a suffix for "doing something again". For example, in Malay, it would turn into "namakan semula" which is just "name it again" instead of a one word "rename" like English. This is way longer than just the original "pindah" (move) (the concept of moving locations is probably more universal than "renaming" something). It will definitely mess up the interface in Malay because of the length of the term used. Long-syllable languages like Kadazandusun will also be longer (pungaranan kawagu) instead of the shorter "poundolihon". I think framing the term "move" to relate it to moving "houses" is much more easier to explain to newbies (especially indigenous communities who still practice semi-nomadic lifestyles by literally moving their houses to another place). I personally hope it won't be changed but just explained more clearly to people.

Any language that think "move" is a better translation for them can definitely stay as move. This has been iterated here before by Amir A.

In T429657#12038330, @Hakimi97 wrote:

In T429657#12038328, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Because we want newcomers to be less confused. A wiki is not just the old-timers.

How do you measure whether the newcomers would be more or less confused with the word "move"? Do you have any additional data or metric across different language editions of wikis to support this statement?

Measuring "confusion" is a bit of tall order but I do a lot of outreach and new editors are always confused.
We can rename it on a wiki and measure the impact on number of moves done. In different aspects too (e.h. number of people doing moves, number of moves by users below 100 edits,...) but also if it works or doesn't in a certain language, it doesn't mean it'll be the case for all languages

The other potential conflict would be be confusion between page renaming and user renaming. But I don't think that would be a large issue.

It seems like the majority of the English Wikipedia community has leaned towards opposing the proposal of renaming "move" to "rename": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1362992673#Rename_%22move%22_to_%22rename%22

What would be the next step after this?

The next step is to see whether English Wikipedia is the exception or the norm. We need to have an inventory of large wikis and whether they are using move, rename or some other way. On the wikis that it's named "move", we need to ask the community if they are open to renaming to rename (e.g. in German Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia, Persian is already renaming).

Then once we have a good result set, then:

• If most large wikis have switched to rename, we can change in software and ask English Wikipedia to overrides it locally.
• If most large wikis also decided to stay with move, we decline this ticket.

Regardless, any wikis is free to override any decision made here.