Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.) Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). 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: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. 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 move process is not mandatory, and sometimes, an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. 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

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article then please request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason = reason for 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 ~~~~.
  • 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

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title;
  • 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. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, because this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 21 February 2018" and sign for you.

Use the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion.

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. 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.

Requesting multiple page moves

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, 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).

{{subst:requested move
| 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, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

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 21 February 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21 February 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21 February 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section 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.
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 21 February 2018

– why Example (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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 21 February 2018

– why Example (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Commenting in a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. It is a place for rational discussion of whether an article should be renamed.

There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., Support or Oppose, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
  • Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior Requested Moves. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates 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.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of 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 a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructions

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 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. 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 can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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 to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussions

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. 20 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

February 21, 2018

  • (Discuss)Dark Ages (historiography)Dark Ages – I am proposing to move this over the disambiguation page. It is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When people refer to the dark ages, they refer to this period in history. The impact of the article is significantly higher than the rest of the pages. In regards to the other items listed in Dark Ages, the arts and entertainment section is more well-known among aficionados and fans of their respective circles. The other "events" are important, but do not stack up in terms of scale to the European Dark Ages, that is this page. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Governing bodyGoverning Body – There are two types of titles mixed together on this page: three of the links are titles for a thing actually named "Governing Body", and capitalized to reflect that this is a formal name; and the remaining six are either non-matching titles or partial title matches describing bodies engaged in some kind of governance. Move this page to the capitalized form and redirect the lowercase to governance, which covers this topic. bd2412 T 11:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sarum RiteSarum Use – A request to change the name of this article to “Sarum Use” was rejected in favor of the recent and poorly-attested term “Sarum Rite”. I was unaware of the discussion at the time, and I am re-submitting this request, this time to be considered in the light of legitimate, academic evidence. The term “rite” or “ritus” or any variation thereof is not found in the surviving Customaries or Ordinals of Sarum Use, anywhere. The only terms—used over and over and over again, for CENTURIES—are “secundum usum sarum” or “ad usum sarum”, i.e., “according to the Use of Sarum” or “in Sarum Use”. A comment in the original discussion of the name-change referred to this as a “made-up phrase”. Ludicrous. The manufactured phrase is “Sarum Rite”. Another commenter made a comparison of the Sarum Use to the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and Cistercian Rite, which was utter nonsense. Those rites legitimately ARE distinct rites, sensu strictu, with their own components and structures and even their own distinct liturgical years. The Sarum Use is a variation of one of those Rites, the Roman. Similarly, other Rites, including many not mentioned here, historically had local variants (not always called “Uses”), most or all of which are now suppressed or forgotten. (Worth noting is that while the mendicant orders and the various branches of Benedictine monasticism have widely varying Rites for the canonical hours—by far the most numerous and lengthy of the day’s services—most congregations adhere to the Roman Rite for mass. Discussions of the topic of Rites and Uses often demonstrate confusion on this point.) For reference, ALL of the surviving Sarum Customaries are available in transcription here: Search on “usum” in each of the Latin or Latin-English customaries, and you will readily see how common this term is. Search on “ritus” or “ritu”, and you will find nothing. (English “rite” was used to translated “obsequium”, which is too bad.) In addition, academic writers of the last century or so have used the term “Sarum Use” exclusively, including W.H. Frere, Francis Procter, and Christopher Wordsworth, the foremost scholars on the subject The claim that the term “Sarum Rite” somehow fits the guidelines of Wikipedia’s "Common Name" is a circular argument, since the only evidence for its widespread use is in Wikipedia’s article, though—ironically enough—not in the article’s own footnotes, where every primary and academic secondary source exclusively uses the term “Sarum Use”. Some of the popular articles use the phrase “Sarum Rite”; but non-academic chit-chats and the popular press are a poor foundation for any genuinely academic article. Clearly, the correct title for this article is “Sarum Use”, and the decision not to make the change should be revisisted. The first line of the article would then read, “The Sarum Use, also known as the Use of Salisbury or the Sarum Rite, was a variant ("use") of the Roman Rite... ” This acknowledges the popular but rather recent use of the term “Sarum Rite”. MonteGargano (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Henry III of FranceHenri III of France – I'm assuming this has been discussed somewhere before, but I'd like to open a WP:Consensus can change discussion about the anglicization at this and similar articles. Using "Henry" here seems, all at once, culturally inappropriate (not much short of changing Louis XIV to the spelling "Lewis" to reflect English-speaking taste), jarring to anyone even faintly familiar with French history, and seriously unhelpful. As to the last point, it makes us unnecessarily disambiguate in running prose with things like "Henry III of France", any time England and France are under discussion in the same article (very frequently). This would not be necessary if we were using Henri for French kings and Henry for the English ones (other than when some third place with a Henry or Henri is involved). A review below indicates these articles have all been named completely randomly without any WP:CONSISTENCY discussion or other concerns being taken into account, yet with a strong but not quite overwhelming preference for "Henri" (sometimes in the text at articles spelled "Henry", too). WP:USEENGLISH doesn't apply here, because English language sources routinely use "Henri", so it's not a foreignism. WP:COMMONNAME would suggest using "Henry" for a handful of these, especially the kings, but COMMONNAME is not even one of the WP:CRITERIA at all, it's just the default suggestion to test against the actual criteria; when we do so, "Henry" fails WP:CONSISTENCY and often WP:PRECISE, and for many of us WP:RECOGNIZABLE, too (I know I would never write "Henry [#] of France" in running prose myself, and even in a paragraph about France "Henry IV", etc., appear to refer to English enemies). We could probably also disambiguate a little less in actual titles if we were using the proper spelling.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ron KarengaMaulana Karenga – This is the name that the subject goes by on his web site and the name by which press reports call him.[2][3][4] It was the name of the article before users moved it twice without discussion.[5][6] The move rationale was "Rm Islamic honorifics." "Mawlānā" is indeed an Islamic honorific, and the subject knows full well where it comes from, and he uses it as his name. Users don't go around moving articles about people named "Stuart" based on whether they're guardians of noble houses, nor "Roy" based on whether they're kings. The rationale is invalid. (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grey hawkGray hawk – This is a WP:ENGVAR spelling issue, requesting the revert of recent title changes made without RM discussions. The Gray hawk article was moved to Grey hawk ten days ago. That is contrary to the prior RM for this page from three years ago and is also contrary to MOS:TIES by switching to British English spelling for an American bird. Similarly Tricoloured munia was moved to Tricolored munia four days ago, which is contrary to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES, but in the other direction – using American spelling for a bird found only in places that use British spelling. The spelling for Tricoloured munia had previously been stable since the article was a stub in 2007. These were part of a long list of similar moves that the editor justified by referring to the spelling used by an external authority (the IOC). When I reverted the move of Tricoloured munia, my revert was reverted. My suggestion is that while we might generally look to some external authority such as IOC for the taxonomy, Wikipedia's own guidelines of WP:ENGVAR, MOS:TIES, and MOS:RETAIN should apply to the question of local spelling variations. See also the RM for Gray-banded kingsnake and the spellings for Gray fox and Eastern gray squirrel. I don't think it is a good idea to have a special rule about ENGVAR spelling for articles about birds that is different than the ENGVAR spelling guidelines used for everything else on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lila Bell WallaceLila Acheson Wallace – Wallace seems to be better known, at least by posterity, as Lila Acheson Wallace than as Lila Bell Wallace. I'm basing this on the fact that I was looking for Lila Acheson Wallace, which in turn was based on how everything named for her references her maiden name rather than her given middle name: the Lila Acheson Wallace Wing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art;[1] the Lila Acheson Wallace Library[2] and the Lila Acheson Wallace American Playwrights Program[3] at The Juillard School; the Lila Acheson Wallace Wing of Mammals and Their Extinct Relatives at the American Museum of Natural History;[4] the Lila Acheson Wallace Auditorium at the Asia Society;[5] etc. In contrast, the use of the appellation Lila Bell Wallace appears to be limited overwhelmingly in Google search results to sentences that mention her in the same breath as her husband, DeWitt Wallace. (Check out the Google search "lila bell wallace" -dewitt, excluding matches containing the word "dewitt", and compare it to the search for "lila acheson wallace" -dewitt.) WP:COMMONNAME, then, would appear to warrant the move. Largoplazo (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 20, 2018

  • (Discuss)List of former Presidents of the Philippines who ran again → ? – There has to be a clearer way to title this article without using the phrase "who ran again", but I have no idea, considering that the scope of this article is about presidents who apparently ran for any office after their presidency, even running for president again. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Levallois-Perret attackLevallois-Perret hit-and-run – Since Hamou Benlatrèche has been formally charged with attempted murder but has not been convicted of that crime, I believe WP:BLPCRIME protections should be our first consideration here over whatever WP:COMMONNAME is. Regardless of MSM being biased and referring to this as an "attack" prior to a criminal conviction, we should operate on a higher standard of proof and abide by our BLP guidelines even when our sources do not. My suggested new name is based on the phrase "hit-and-run" being used instead of attack in some of our sources, which I believe is more neutral to use than 'attack'. *Bisserbe, Noemie (10 August 2017). "Details Emerge on Suspect in Paris Hit-and-Run". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 August 2017.  *"Suspect in hit-and-run on French soldiers unknown to spy agencies: source". Reuters. 10 August 2017.  Just because many media sources move from HAR to saying "attack" doesn't mean we ought to do that prior to a criminal conviction. I would not object to this if the suspect is dead, but since the suspect is alive and unconvicted, BLP protection must extend to them and over-ride COMMONNAME policy. We must decide which is more important, and if that prioritizing is done consistently. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)C. C. H. PounderCCH Pounder – It's been over a year and a half since the last request. Per WP:SPACEINITS, if "an overwhelming majority of reliable sources" use the "CCH Pounder" version instead of the "C. C. H. Pounder" (or "C.C.H. Pounder") version, that's the version that should be used. As indicated in the previous discussion (a few sections up) and per a recent Google search of news sources, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (well over 95% of those I checked) use the "CCH Pounder" version. The previous arguments that we should use our "house style" and waiting for her to express a personal preference for "CCH" over "C.C.H." or "C. C. H." fail to take into account that verifiability is a policy and our manual of style pages are only guidelines. When the overwhelming majority of reliable sources clearly show "CCH" over any other variant, we must follow policy over our house style guideline. Policy always trumps guidelines. Please express your opinion below, followed by any support for your position. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2017 New York City truck attack2017 Manhattan truck crash – as Sayfullo Saipov is still awaiting trial. He has been charged, not convicted. We need convictions to establish that whatever happened actually WAS an attack. WP:BLPCRIME protection must supplant WP:COMMONNAME. We have higher standards than the MSM. My proposed Manhattan truck crash rephrasing is derived from this source which actually has a neutral title: *"Manhattan truck crash leaves 6 dead, police sources say; person in custody". 31 October 2017. Archived from the original on 1 November 2017.  Changing from "crash" to "attack" should not happen prior to a criminal conviction regardless of whatever the common name, as BLP protections and NPOV must be the leading policy here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2017 Edmonton attack2017 Edmonton stabbing and van chase – I believe that WP:BLPCRIME protection for Abdulahi Sharif should take priority over WP:COMMONNAME considering that the sources only mention that he has been charged with murder, not that he has been convicted of it. I believe our policy is to await convictions before saying someone did a crime as a matter-of-fact. Asserting these events are an "attack" in the very title creates the sort of problem Mahamad Accord discusses in this source: *Huncar, Andrea (5 October 2017). "Religion played no major role in life of man charged in Edmonton attacks, says human rights activist". Added Accord: "He's been tried and convicted in the media."  My suggested title is derived from searching media titles until coming across one which does appear to abide by BLP policy: *"Trudeau calls stabbing and van chase in Edmonton a terrorist attack". 1 October 2017.  Moving back to the "attack" title is something we should only do when Mr. Sharif has actually has a criminal conviction establishing that an attack actually happened. While it is true that the MSM is calling this an attack en-masse, I think our BLP policies prohibit us from repeating this to impugne Sharif's character, because Wikipedia based on our present printed policies purports to have higher standards than they do. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2017 Stockholm attack2017 Stockholm suspected terror attack – I believe WP:BLPCRIME protection for Rakhmat Akilov (who so far as I know, has only been charged with murder/terrorism, not convicted) should take priority over WP:COMMONNAME. This is a phrase used in the following neutrally-titled source: *"Four confirmed dead, one arrested over suspected terror attack". Sveriges Radio. Retrieved 7 April 2017.  The neutrality problem with calling this an 'attack' prior to a conviction is that establishing whether or not the truck collision was an attack or not is part of what the trial process determines. By presupposing it is an attack (like many in the MSM are obviously doing) we are declaring that whoever was driving the truck was attacking with it, and communicating that all you need to do is prove Akilov was driving the truck to prove he was attacking with it. However, in a trial process, you must do more than prove means (that he was driving) but also motive (that he intended to drive in an attacking way) which has not yet happened via a guilty verdict in the last 3 weeks since he was formally charged on January 30th. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Korean rockK-rock – This is mainly a move for consistency. All the other pages in the other languages refers to Korean rock as K-rock. I proposed the same move for Japanese rock since people also use the term J-rock more often when referring to rock that comes from Japan. Similar to how K-pop and J-pop is used to refer to pop music from both countries and Korean idol and Japanese idol when referring to the specific singers. The Korean page also uses K-Rock with the English page being the only one that doesn't. KumaPanda (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Japanese rockJ-rock – This is mainly a move for consistency. All the other pages in the other languages refers to Japanese rock as J-Rock since that's what many in Japan use as well. It's similar to how the term J-Pop is used instead of Japanese pop music. Also, almost all of fans of Japanese rock also use J-rock including the biggest English language news outlet on J-rock, JROCK NEWS. KumaPanda (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lilydale Adventist AcademyEdinburgh College – Lilydale Adventist Academy has been renamed to Edinburgh College (previously a boarding school). More info: & & Mstoltztrueagency (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eaker Air Force BaseBlytheville Air Force Base – Use name by which the base was known throughout its life, except perhaps during its last four years of operation, and by which it is known currently (as in 2018 National Register of Historic Places registration). Doncram (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Khaidu (ruler)Kaidu (11th century) – I believe Kaidu and Khaidu are both romanizations of the exact same Mongolian name. WP:NCMON says: "For historic names (before 1936), it may not always be appropriate to transcribe from the modern Cyrillic Mongolian version. Such names can be more common in transcription from the classical Mongolian script, or from other languages (Turkic, Tungusic, Persian, Chinese, etc.). In general, historic names will be subject to a case-by-case decision about which original version to transcribe." According to the article this guy "is mentioned in the Secret History of the Mongols, the History of Yuan, and the Jami al-Tawarikh." The first 2 books survived in Chinese only and I'm verifying his Chinese name is exactly the same as the 13th-century Kaidu's. Per WP:CONSISTENCY, I think we should use "Kaidu" for him as well? (I can't judge the 3rd book.) Google Ngram shows "Kaidu" to be more common than "Khaidu". Notice the 13th-century guy seems to be the primary topic for "Khaidu": [8]. Therefore Khaidu (which is currently a dab page) should just redirect to Kaidu with a hatnote for the 11th-century leader. "Ruler" doesn't work as a disambiguator because the 13th-century guy was also a ruler. Timmyshin (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

February 19, 2018

  • (Discuss)Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment ExplorerLADEE – In line with the naming conventions for spacecraft on Wikipedia. There is no disambiguation for the all-caps "LADEE" name. The existing link is, in fact, a redirect to this article. Other examples of this naming convention include LCROSS, MESSENGER, STEREO, SMART-1, and NEAR Shoemaker. WP:COMMONNAME is also applicable in this circumstance, as "LADEE" is referenced as the mission's name more than its full title. NASA never uses its full title outside a lead sentence, opting to use the acronym to refer to the spacecraft frequently in press releases (Examples 1, 2, 3), and the official NASA Solar System Exploration entry for the mission is "LADEE". In addition, news coverage also extensively uses the "LADEE" name (Examples 1, 2). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 22:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gravity Recovery and Interior LaboratoryGRAIL – In line with the naming conventions for spacecraft on Wikipedia. There is no disambiguation for the all-caps "GRAIL" name. The existing link is, in fact, a redirect to this article. Other examples of this naming convention include LCROSS, MESSENGER, STEREO, SMART-1, and NEAR Shoemaker. WP:COMMONNAME is also applicable in this circumstance, as "GRAIL" is referenced as the mission's name more than its full title. NASA never uses its full title outside a lead sentence, opting to use the acronym to refer to the spacecraft frequently in press releases (Examples 1, 2, 3). The official NASA Solar System Exploration entry for the mission is "GRAIL" The spacecraft's manufacturer Lockheed Martin uses the "GRAIL" name liberally, and news coverage almost exclusively uses the "GRAIL" name in both capitalised and non-capitalised forms (Examples 1, 2) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 21:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of changes in Star Wars re-releasesChanges in Star Wars re-releases – "List of changes" was more appropriate when this article was quite literally a list documenting every known edit made to each movie. But now that this article has taken a more general approach to discussing the changes while only mentioning a few notable examples, I believe a name-change is appropriate to reflect the article now being about how the movies underwent changes instead of listing off what all of the changes are. WeezleBeezle (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marshall R. TeagueMarshall Teague (actor) – although listed at IMDb [as of this writing] under main header "Marshall R. Teague", subject's most frequent on-screen (including TV) billing has been as "Marshall Teague" [approximately 80–85 percent of credits]. American Film Institute Catalog and AllMovie both list him as "Marshall Teague", with no alternative listing as "Marshall R. Teague". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Two Fingers (song)Two Fingers – The artist "Two Fingers", which was formerly at that page, is an alias for Amon Tobin, which I am in the process of merging into his article. I specified the Amon Tobin alias with a hatnote on the Jake Bugg's song article. JE98 (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18, 2018

  • (Discuss)Clarence Beavers (soldier)Clarence H. Beavers – Remove the text "(solider)" from the title and add the subject of the article middle initial. Many google search results, of the subject of this article, display his full name with the middle initial. This was also the subject of the article's own preference use of his name both in writing and introductions. The text "(solider)" should be removed from the title since that text doesn't appear on many other WWII soldiers wikipedia article titles (i.e. Donald Malarkey; Richard Winters; Roscoe Brown etc. Cbeavers39 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MP3 playerDigital Audio Player – Its correct technical name is Digital Audio Player, MP3 is just a format which all of them support it but are not limited to it, specially in recent years. Editor-1 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jungang LineJungang line – "Line" should not be considered part of the proper name. This also applies to other articles of Korean rail lines. In fact, I performed such moves, but reversed them per a request on my talk page. feminist (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Gast (painter)American Progress (painting) – The article seems to be mostly about the painting, and the painting seems to be much more notable than the artist who made it, about whom little is known. The artist doesn't appear to have any other notable works, so maybe this article should be moved to the painting instead of the artist's name. Bindle-stiff (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17, 2018

  • (Discuss)Hutchison 3G3 (telecommunications) – The 3/Three brand was never ran by the name Hutchison 3G, but it was used as the trading name for its UK business - Three UK (Hutchison 3G UK Limited) [9]. Different networks in different countries are marketed under the 3/Three brand and have quite different ownerships, it was the global brand that brings them together. The global brand name is only 3/Three. - Wefk423 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AparokshaAparoksha (Indian Philosophy) – Aparoksha is an ambiguous topic(may refer to a concept in Hinduism as well as the name of an Annual Technical Festival in India). The move is proposed before the generation a DAB page for the same. Aotoge (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Olympic VillageOlympic village – Surely this word is a noun rather than a proper noun? This article refers to the general concept of Olympic housing rather than a specific place, so I see no reason to treat it like a proper noun. The adjective "Olympic" is still proper though, since it originally refers to Mount Olympus. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 10:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Corvette (disambiguation)Corvette – The ship is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Corvette" and so should not be at the plain title; this dab page should be there. The car consistently gets twice as many page views as the ship does. Twice as many! There is a strong argument to be made that the car is the primary topic, but in the end probably neither one is - the dab page should be at Corvette. В²C 01:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)German-speaking Community of BelgiumEastern Belgium – Ostbelgien is the official new name as they renamed it in 2017,,, DeLeeuw83 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16, 2018

  • (Discuss)2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa2014 Ottawa shootingWP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME. It is more common to identify the incident as happening in Ottawa (963 Google Books souces) than Parliament Hill (734 Google Books sources); as noted in the last RM in 2014, the murder of the Canadian soldier didn't even happen on Parliament Hill (see map), making the fact that this inaccuracy in the title has persisted for over three years rather embarrassing.
    Sites of shooting
    The last RM failed because it proposed "attacks" rather than the favoured "shooting". Before that, it was nonsensically claimed "2014 Ottawa shooting" would imply 365 days of shootings, when in fact, as another user noted, "'2014 Ottawa shootings' no more means there was a year of shootings than '22 October 2014 Ottawa shootings' means there was 24 hours of shootings." There may have been other guns fired in 2014 in Ottawa, but it doesn't matter; this is recognizable and indisputably the primary topic for "2014 Ottawa shooting". Ribbet32 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 22:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sarah Jane Brown → ? – The obvious and ideal title for this article, Sarah Brown, is ambiguous, and so we shouldn't use it because this article's subject is arguably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. The current title disambiguating using her middle name remains problematic because her middle name is not used in reliable sources to refer to her, and it's misleading for us to use it because it is not WP:NATURALDIS ("an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources"). While the last RM (above, withdrawn) established there is consensus to change this title, it's unclear which alternative the community prefers. So, we've constructed the table below with all of the suggestions made previously that will hopefully allow us to make this determination. Special multi-choice RM Instructions: * Please specify which of the choices below are acceptable and unacceptable as titles of this article, and why. * Please also specify priorities among the acceptable in a manner that will aid the closer in best identifying the community's preferred choice. One way to do this is to assign a 0-10 point value, optionally with decimals for more granularity (e.g., 8.5) to each one. But most importantly remember to explain your reasoning. * Base on previous RMs, it's likely that "Sarah Jane Brown" and "Sarah Brown (wife of ...)" are likely to each be be strongly opposed by many, so please be clear about your preferences other than these. В²C 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 19:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shuttlecraft (Star Trek)Shuttlecraft – This article is the clear primary topic for this name. While there may be an overall term for "shuttle" type craft in general, the word "shuttlecraft" is overwhelmingly used in a Star Trek context by sources rather than for landing/transport spacecraft as a whole. Disambiguation page is likely unnecessary, a hatnote can accomplish the same. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15, 2018

  • (Discuss)Protagonist (Persona 3)Makoto Yuki (Persona) – He is no longer a nameless protagonist, and the article mentions he was given a "canon" name which is used in the article itself as well as the movie based on him. It would make sense to move to his "official" name. Additional reasoning is that he does not just appear in Persona 3, so this allows for the disambiguation to be simpler.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Game Boy line → ? – The words "line" and "family" do not seem to be part of any official name to describe the series of handheld consoles which these articles describe. In fact, amending any word to their titles seem to not be proper. I'm proposing that these to articles move to a title with a consistent/same disambiguator (such as "(brand)" or "(series)") as there seems to be no natural disambiguation title option for either of these other than moving them to their ambiguous titles ... which are currently occupied by articles representing the first-released consoles in their series. (Game Boy, Nintendo DS.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Emma (wrestler)Tenille Dashwood – I agree with User:Davey2010 that the page name should be Tenille Dashwood. It is her real name, it is her name in the major promotion Ring of Honor and she is currently widely featured under that name in the major wrestling media (for example Observer and SBNation ). Since WWE trademarks names and treads them independent from the wrestlers (they can give the names to any performer), she is legally not connected to that name and will likely also not perform under that name in the near future. --Casra (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dustin Brown (disambiguation)Dustin Brown – No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - the tennis player and ice hockey player both have roughly the same number of pageviews. If anything, the tennis player is slightly more well-known than the ice hockey player, but not enough to be the primary topic. See this wmflabs link (note: I couldn't work out how to produce a link due to the "|" in the wmflabs url generating formatting issues- if anyone can work out a way round this issue it would be appreciated). Link: Link to wmflabs page. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician)Chris Murphy – This move was last requested in 2006, when Murphy had just been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. At the time, the result of the debate was no consensus. Now, twelve years later, he is a prominent member of the U.S. Senate who is often mentioned as a potential candidate for President of the United States in 2020. He far and away is the most notable of Wikipedia's Chris or Christopher Murphys. This commonsense move will ensure that more people find what they're looking for faster. Kiernanmc (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Winds of WinterThe Winds of Winter (novel) – There is no correct disambiguation between the two articles. For the latter article, its disambiguation is "Game of Thrones", but many readers may not be aware of the difference between "Game of Thrones" for the television series ,and "A Game of Thrones" or "A Song of Ice and Fire" for the book series, and hence the "episode" disambiguation is required. For the former article, no disambiguation is given, and I don't believe that it can be considered the primary topic given the popularity of the television series. The two need to be correctly titled, and then the non-disambiguated title turned into a disambiguation article for the two. -- AlexTW 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14, 2018

  • (Discuss)LGBTLGBTQ – "LGBT" was certainly the predominant form at the time this article was created, but there's since been a solid and well-documented shift, and "LGBTQ" is clearly the most common standard now. To be clear, I don't think it would be helpful to move this article every time another subgroup comes along to add another letter to the alphabet soup that the most extended permutations have turned into — "K" for "kinky" being the newest — but the most common base form seen in standard sources now pretty consistently includes Q. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Teresia SampsoniaTeresa Sampsonia – -- Made a small mistake. I initially called the article "Teresa" but later changed it "Teresia". Having just raised this article to GA, I came to the conclusion that the title should be changed back to "Teresa Sampsonia", because thats what mmost RS sources call her. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Judas IscariotJudas – This article, most biblical mentions, most references, universal everyday speech, everyone and everything refers to this person primarily as "Judas" rather than "Judas Iscariot". The current title is overly detailed, and seems to imply that there are multiple historical people named Judas and that this person is not the primary topic. So much like Cleopatra is not named "Cleopatra VII", Julius Caesar is not named "Gaius Julius Caesar", and United States is not named "United States of America", this article should be named simply "Judas". Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, simply put.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should hide the fact that Judas had a surname. I think the article lead term should still read "Judas Iscariot", while the article title carries the short, easily recognisable name. Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 17:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^

See also

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requested moves"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA