Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
"Wikipedia:RFPM" redirects here. For the place to request the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
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:

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 can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, 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.

  • 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.

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 28 April 2017" 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.

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.


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 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.

April 28, 2017

April 27, 2017

  • (Discuss).bangla.বাংলা – The title of this ccTLD related article should be .বাংলা not .bangla (In english .বাংলা can be romanized as .bangla, but the english romanized latter is not a valid domain. eg: http://উত্তরাধিকার.বাংলা is valid but http://উত্তরাধিকার.bangla isn't valid). I saw there is other articles like .рф, .срб, those articles didn't use romanized latter as article title. So i request to move this. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil WarIran–Israel proxy conflict during the Syrian Civil War – Per above rationale that Israel has in fact refrained from direct participation/involvement in the conflict and there is a long-standing consensus not to list Israel as a party in the war per WP:WEIGHT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Some issues of the Syrian conflict are linked with Israel - notably including the limited spillover cross-border incidents (spillover is not involvement) occasionally taking place. Furthermore, sometimes there are allegations over mostly non-confirmed claims regarding attacks on Hezbollah and Iranian targets in the region, indirectly linked with the Syrian conflict - which this article is dealing with. This article is clearly emphasizing allegations on possible Israeli attacks against Hezbollah and Iran in the region, which may have occurred in Syrian territories or Lebanon (IDF refused to comment on location of targets, though one time accused Hezbollah on 2015 attack from Lebanon and once admitted on attacking Hezbollah in 2017). In any case - this is being much less WP:WEIGHT than the actually involved parties in the Syrian War. Finally, many sources speaking of "Israeli involvement" in Syrian conflict in fact refer either to a possible future scenario which is essentially WP:CRYSTALBALL (see Israel Drawn Into Syrian War by Islamist Threat to Druze (2015) "Israeli army chief Gadi Eisenkot told a parliamentary panel Tuesday that the military would act if needed to prevent a massacre of Druze on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights") or referring to Israeli diplomatic efforts in this regard (see Remaking Syria: A Military Update, the Diplomatic Situation, and the Israeli Angle (March 2017) "Israel, which has largely been distanced from the Syrian quagmire, senses its lack of influence over arrangements currently underway in Moscow, Tehran, Ankara, Astana, and Geneva. "). GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 26, 2017

  • (Discuss)WARV-FM TemporaryWARV-FM – Article pages for two radio stations in Virginia that have just swapped their call letters. Evidence of this transaction can be seen on the FCC database here: For the new WARV-FM:
    For the new WKYV: Thanks! Snoqualmie7 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bill Poole (politician)Bill PooleWilliam Poole was known as "Bill the Butcher" and "Bill the Butcher Poole", and less commonly as "Bill Poole". The current politician is known as "Bill Poole" primarily, and the disambiguator shouldn't be necessary. A hat note at the top of the Alabama politician's page can easily direct people to the gang leader's page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eric, Duke of SödermanlandEric Magnusson – Eric was not "Duke of Södermanland". His duchy was made up of Södermanland and parts of Uppland, but his title was simply "Duke"(c.f. Svensk biografiskt Lexikon [4]). The current title only give hits on what appears to be automated translations of books in Swedish and a "book" made up of Wikipedia articles in Google books [5]. If the current disambiguation page for Eric Magnusson is deemed to have higher priority, this could be moved to Eric Magnusson (duke) instead. Andejons (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)State Grid Corporation of ChinaState Grid – Contested move. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP, which states The legal status suffix of a company ... is not normally included in the article title. Disambiguation is not necessary because no other topics are named "State Grid". Google Trends show that "state grid" is a far more common search term than "state grid corporation of china", and web results tend to use "State Grid" more commonly than the full name. feminist 11:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SephirotSefirot – I have checked all the references cited and all refer to sefirot and not sephirot. I have updated the article to reflect this but the page is move protected from a prior move dispute. If the ph spelling is retained, it should be used consistently throughout. Using f seems to be much easier on the eye. 238-Gdn (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jathi MalliJaathi Malli – That is not only the spelling on the poster, but also the correct way to pronounce it. Readers may overlook the "aa" pronunciation if one "a" is left out. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

April 25, 2017

  • (Discuss)Dualism (philosophy of mind) → ? – The current name is unwieldy and awkward, I don't feel it is restricted only to the "philosophy of mind" (it could refer to metaphysics and potentially other philosophical sub-fields), and personally the topic took me several minutes to finally find. Typically, I have heard it labelled in philosophy books as "Metaphysical dualism", though Google results show that "Mind–body dualism" is even more common. It certainly would have been easier to track down. Either name I've suggested seems preferable to me. Wolfdog (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mandy (Scott English and Richard Kerr song)Brandy (Scott English and Richard Kerr song) – Tough call here, but I believe this move should be done. The most popular recordings of this song, most notably the one by Barry Manilow, are titled "Mandy", but the original song that was recorded was titled "Brandy". For that reason, I don't think that WP:COMMONNAME applies in the case of this article's title since from precedence I have seen, the title of the song goes to the original recording or the original performer of the song when a song has a/multiple cover(s). And finally, the current title is misleading since the songwriters in the disambiguator, Scott English and Richard Kerr, never released a song titled "Mandy" ... since it was titled "Brandy". Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sara Del ReySara Amato – Shouldn't the name of this page be "Sara Amato" instead of "Sara Del Rey"? I know she's mainly known as "Sara Del Rey", but WWE has been referencing her with her real name ever since at least the first episode of Breaking Ground (2015). Even Matt Bloom has been using his real name ever since he became a trainer (and future head trainer) while in the WWE. Might I add that people who use their ring names in the WWE had their page names changed (i.e. El Generico to Sami Zayn and Kevin Steen to Kevin Owens). (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Intel SecurityMcAfee – Intel spun off the Intel Security division back into McAfee as an independent company. Intel Security no longer exists. This is a pretty clear move, I just want to be sure everyone is cool with it. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

April 24, 2017

  • (Discuss)J-caron – All articles about Latin characters with carons are titled as just the combined character (Č, Ž), rather than a textual description ("C with caron", "Z with caron"). These two articles are the only exceptions and should be moved. (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ONE - to get ready: FOUR..... to – GO!One to Get Ready, Four to GoMOS:CT, MOS:ALLCAPS, MOS:TM, WP:TITLETM. The current title has inappropriate all-caps styling that is not consistently followed in sources. Three sources are cited in the article, and none of them use the current styling. Even if we were trying to replicate the styling on the cover art, we wouldn't use the current title, since the cover art doesn't show a space after the "ONE" or before the "GO", and uses a very long second dash rather than an en dash. The proposed title is the one shown on Allmusic. Discogs and Amazon are similar, but capitalize the "To"s and include the exclamation mark. Worldcat uses lowercase except for the first word and includes the exclamation mark. Amoeba has one "to" in lowercase and one "To" with uppercase, and includes three dots (with no spaces around them) and the exclamation mark. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)911AD 911WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the year is clearly not the primary topic for "911" due to the existence of the emergency number and terrorist attacks. This move has previously been rejected for being against policy, but that policy changed and now there are many cases of number pages being disambiguation pages (such as 11, 42, et cetera). So there is no reason not to make 911 a disambiguation page. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hurricane Daniel (2006)Hurricane Daniel – THIS Hurricane Daniel (no TS okay...) is much more prominent than any Hurricane Daniels i know of (even this one is very close to the retirement!, even it deals no damage). Even, this is only Hurricane Daniel to ever be not a redirect. So, i consider this to be a primary topic. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 09:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KUCO-LDKUCO-LP – The station's callsign per FCC Query is KUCO-LP, not KUCO-LD. Even though the station have a permit to operate in digital, it has yet to commence. It can be change back to the "KUCO-LD" calls should that change in the future. Csworldwide1 (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Syberia IIISyberia 3 – Unlike in the case of "Syberia II", this game was presented as "Syberia 3". As can be seen on official page, or many other pages: 1, 2, 3. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23, 2017

  • (Discuss)Robert C. IrwinRobert Irwin – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most google search results are about this Robert Irwin, and the pageviews analysis shows that Robert C. Irwin's wikipedia page is viewed far more often than those of all the other Robert Irwins. (Note that I chose a pageviews graph from mid-March to mid-April 2017, to avoid the popularity spikes of Robert C. Irwin before and after this date). Also, the subject of the second-most-popular article, Bob Irwin, is normally known as "Bob", not "Robert", so not many people would search for "Robert Irwin" if looking for his article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)American ethnicityAmerican ancestry – After seeing the current and now archived talks I decided to clean up this article with sourced content ect... After do so I think the article would best represent the content, scoop and it's sources if this was moved back to American ancestry where it was at one time. Finding an ideal title for this symbolic or self-proclaimed group is difficult but I think American ancestry is "Ancestry" is a specific US Census question in 2000. Moxy (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gateway GeyserMalcolm W. Martin Memorial Park – While the fountain existed before the rest of the park, it is now but one element within the park, and I am preparing to expand this article to include the overlook and statue as well. Expansion is one of the reasons for moving a page (bullet #5), when the scope of an article broadens. There may not be enough resources available to establish a new, separate article for the park and still keep this one, which means to cover both in one article, I believe it should follow Wikipedia's naming convention for places rather than for works of art as it is currently. This would follow the example of "The Way", probably the most recognizable element of Laumeier Sculpture Park, where the individual sculpture is covered within the article named for the whole park. In this case, the fountain name, Gateway Geyser would remain in bold in the article lead due to a redirect that would be created here, and this would have no impact on searchability on the web or within Wikipedia. RM2KX (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Hancock Tower200 Clarendon Street – I do not support this move, but an an editor (with his first edit) moved it without discussion from "John Hancock Tower" to "200 Clarendon Street". I'm not sure what the name should be (the old name is fine with me, but I don't really know the answer), but at any rate it should be discussed. So I move it back, and let's have a proper discussion if we want to move it. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22, 2017

  • (Discuss)Your Nameyour name. – I've read the discussions above. It's worth noting that "your name." (with lowercase in y and n) is the only official English name of the movie. See the top left logo on the official website of the movie IamCristYe (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Damn (album)Damn. (album)MOS:TM (guideline) does not trump WP:COMMONNAME (policy). The album title is represented in the majority of reliable third-party sources with a full stop at the end of the title. We do not change the titles of albums/works that end in exclamation points or question marks; periods should not be treated any differently. See: Daily Beast, Billboard, NME, Rolling Stone, USA Today, NPR, and BET among others. MOS:TM is frequently misinterpreted and is not meant as a way for Wikipedia editors to change the name of works; it's meant to differentiate between official titles and unprintworthy trademark stylizations that are not the official name of a brand/product (i.e. "Macy*s" is not the name of "Macy's"). Chase (talk | contributions) 17:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ag QoyunluAq Qoyunlu – For some reason, without any discussion on the talk page, the name of the article was changed from the common English spelling of 'Aq Qoyunlu' to 'Ag Qoyunlu'. Can someone please change this back? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)British-Israel-World FederationBritish-Israel World Federation – Apologies for a new RfC, but I seem to have missed the old ones. Whatever the official name might be, reliable sources don't use it very often. Googlebooks[9] and Google Scholar[10] - many just call it the British Israel World Federation, those that use British-Israel still call it the British-Israel World Federation, with a few exceptions. WP:COMMONAME should apply. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vallabhbhai PatelSardar Vallabhai Patel – This page was moved to Vallabhai Patel per old title policy, which meant that no titles could be used at all. However, now it has changed, as shown on Mahatma Gandhi article where the title Mahatma is used. The old consensus was established showing that the article name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, but it is renamed as the policy has changed through consensus. Unable to find a single source thorugh a quick google search with the name Vallabhai Patel other than Wikipedia and its copies. Therfore, the name with the title Sardar is the commonly used name, and per WP:COMMONNAME the common name of the subject is to be used. The old policy has changed, and his name is almost always said using Sardar, even abroad India in USA. (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lust for Life (Iggy Pop song)Lust for Life (song) – The Iggy Pop song has existed for 40+ years, has been used in numerous films, tv shows, and tv commercials, and is regarded as iconic. A new song by Lana Del Rey does not compare in terms of historical or cultural importance. This page move is not uncontroversial or merely technical. This should have been discussed first. I would argue that the Iggy Pop title is the main subject and should have preference. Either way, the matter should be discussed. - The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pyotr IlichovPetr Iliichev – Current name is a random and controversial transliteration, see: [11], [12], [13] and a good deal of other UN documents Яй (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ajay DevganAjay Devgn – Changed his name to Ajay Devgn 8 years ago. All the sources including most of those in the references, refer to him as Ajay Devgn. Here's 1 link each from each major Indian media house to cite my point - [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. A search for Ajay Devgan ([20]) or Ajay Devgn ([21]) on Google News provides results for only Ajay Devgn in both the cases. Even his production company has the new name on Wikipedia (Ajay Devgn FFilms). It would therefore be better if the article changes to Ajay Devgn which is the WP:COMMONNAME now. The introductory sentence can be changed to Ajay Devgn (born Vishal Veeru Devgan on 2 April 1969), earlier known as Ajay Devgan, is an Indian film actor, director and producer. Jupitus Smart 09:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kaya F.C.Kaya FC-Makati – Revert back to "Kaya FC-Makati". It's the new official name of the club as given by the club themselves, will be participating in the upcoming Philippines Football League (PFL) as Kaya FC–Makati.[22]. FilFootyGuy (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21, 2017

  • (Discuss)Monkeys Eyebrow, KentuckyMonkey's Eyebrow, Kentucky – per WP:COMMONNAME. The U.S. federal government has had a policy for some time of being very hostile to apostrophes (per sources already cited on this article's Talk page). They have removed them from the names they use as identifiers for many places – based on the notion that they don't want places to have names that might imply ownership (although the notion that this place's name implies ownership seems rather dubious). However, what matters to Wikipedia is the common name, not the official name, and the name of this place makes no sense without the apostrophe. Wikipedia tries to merely document common usage and follow ordinary English grammar. Both of the non-government sources that are cited in the article include the apostrophe, and so does the title of this book. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Leif EriksonLeifr Eiríksson – Leifr or Leifur seems to be a lot more common than Leif - see:íksson+-wikipedia and - and should thus be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. It is also his birth name; the current page name severely butchers it. ArniDagur (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GurgaonGurugram – Requesting this move since the name of the city and district has been officially changed and it has been mostly uncontroversial with media and businesses cooperating by accepting new name along with the government. Gurugram page was created and used as redirect to Gurgaon so I am unable to move page due to overwriting; hence requesting this move. JayB91 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hohlgangsanlage 8Jersey War Tunnels – The official name has been now changed to Jersey War Tunnels, with the mention that it was previously known as Höhlgangsanlage 8. Their own website and social media accounts reflect the rebrand. Rekawilson (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Voting methodBalloting method – per Filingpro above. Also acceptable would be "voting format", "voting modality", "voting technology", or "ballot mechanism". If people really preferred it, I'd even be OK with "voting mechanism" (even though in my experience that is used by RSs to mean varied things, so it's not my favorite). The main point is that the current title "voting method" is highly confusing, since it's usually used to refer to electoral methods — algorithms to map from ballots to winners. Homunq () 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anti-Christian policies in the Roman EmpirePersecution of Christians in the Roman Empire – This page was moved some years ago from the old title with the single edit summary "NPOV." Presumably the idea was that "persecution" seems judgmental whereas "anti-Christian policies" seems "neutral." But it is a freshman mistake. Much of the relevant persecution, including during crucial formative periods in early Christianity, was from neighbours and community members not as a matter of Roman "policy." The perception that Christianity was from the start an illegal religion subject to heavy state repression is a popular, not a scholarly one. The title is thus extremely misleading (unless there was some intent to split the article into one about "anti-Christian policies" and another for popular discontent with Christianity, but there is no evidence that this was intended.) TiC (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

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)Tulsa race riotTulsa Race Massacre of 1919 – After doing extensive research on the Rosewood massacre, and other such massacres, for a project, I realized that several of these events had been erroneously labelled as being "race riots." Realizing the discrepancy, I looked on the Wiki help pages on how go about moving a page. I made the edits/moves and went on with my day. Then I was contacted by Wiki editors who told me that my moves had been rejected for being "contentious." Given there is no difference between the "Rosewood massacre" and the Elaine race riot, the Tulsa race riot, and the Meridian race riot of 1871, I edited/moved the pages for accuracy and uniformity. My intention was not contentious but, as is often the case when one points out the inaccurate labelling of racism/racist acts (which have been historically minimized by the status quo), I was basically labelled a "troublemaker," with one editor alluding to the edits/moves as being "inappropriate" and questioning my sincerity because I hadn't made a Wiki edit "for months," and the other editor telling me that I lacked "common sense" in making the edit/move...while adding that "the moves were hasty." Both editors made judgments on my character and intent without 1) knowing me or 2) making any effort to understand me or my intent. I have made several edits to pages before, over 6 years, and nothing I've ever edited was ever treated in such a manner. When pointing out that my moves were based on, in part, Wiki's own page definitions of riot vs. massacre, in addition to the sources already on those pages, and Wiki's own context of the Rosewood massacre...I was again labeled "contentious." Furthermore, not only were my edits/moves rejected, I then pleaded for help in how to get such changes made by expressing the importance of the accuracy: "This has many implications, and it is also just factually and historically inaccurate. If you want to be helpful, please don't just point out how I'm 'wrong,' but tell me how I can go about making things 'right." Yet, my plea was unanswered, with the editor simply labeling my moves as being in "good faith," though noting that my response was "contentious." I don't use Wiki forums often, and have only learned of building consensus. And this is something that I will aim to do right now, because such mislabelling of history has an adverse effect on the present, and impacts the future. Given that Wikipedia is the defecto source of info for so many people, accuracy is important. A "riot" doesn't result in intentional mass loss of life and total destruction/desecration of property for one side. A "riot" implies that "everyone" is perpetrating chaos. Furthermore, "riots" are how these events were labelled by the status quo, at the time, in order to shift blame off of one group and "split" it with another group -- a group that had no say in the matter. This is the historical context that my edits were aiming to correct. Wiki's own definition of massacre is twofold: "...the intentional killing by political actors of a significant number of relatively defenseless people... the motives for massacre need not be rational in order for the killings to be intentional...can be carried out for various reasons, including a response to false rumors... political... should be distinguished from criminal or pathological mass killings..." and "the murder of more than one individual, within an outrageous moral deficiency...not carried out by individuals, but by groups...[with] the use of superior, even overwhelming force..." Riots, on the other hand, while they may result in death(s), don't involve murder as in-the-moment sport -- the opportunistic mass killing of one group by another group. Yet, these events in Tulsa, Elaine and Meridian left more than 600 blacks dead (the known number on record), thousands hospitalized and over 10,000 homeless, while about 10 whites were accidentally other whites. How can these events truthfully, in 2017, still be labelled "riots?" My edits were akin to noting the difference between saying a man "died" when there is widespread factual evidence that he was "murdered." Contextual accuracy is important and it should not matter when/how we recognize the inaccuracies, what should matter is that they are corrected when we see them. This benefits us all. That said, I would like the rejection of my edits/moves to be reconsidered because they: # Reflect an accurate definition of the events that transpired # Take into account the context (Jim Crow) by which the COMMONNAME of event came to be known # Aim to correct the damage that the COMMONNAME has upon the present and future context of the event # Reflect that the community that was harmed in the event had no say in the matter as to how the event was initially labelled, which came to be the event's COMMONNAME # Are in line with, and brings uniformity to, context provided in Wiki's own representation of other such events like the Rosewood massacre, the Opelousas massacre, the Coushatta massacre, the Hamburg massacre, The Slocum Massacre of 1910, the Ocoee massacre, the Orangeburg massacre, and the Thibodaux massacre # Acknowledge new research and classification that exist today, corrects inaccuracies about the event, which is seldom mentioned in history books # Recognize that information, in any encyclopedia, can evolve as knowledge evolves # Take the following additional sources into consideration:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][18][15][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][9][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Furthermore, please take the following into account:  :* "The attack, which happened 95 years ago on May 31 and June 1, 1921, is now known as the Tulsa race massacre of 1921."[3]  :* "It was always a remarkable feature of these insurrections and riots that only Negroes were killed during the rioting, and that all the white men escaped un- harmed. From 1865-1872, hundreds of colored men and wo- men were mercilessly murdered and the almost invariable reason assigned was that they met their death by being alleged participants in an insurrection or riot. But this story at last wore itself out. No insurrection ever materialized; no Negro rioter was ever apprehended and proven guilty, and no dyna-mite ever recorded the black man's protest against oppression and wrong." - Ida B. Wells[54]  :* "Armed guerilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites." - W. E. B. Du Bois[55]  :* Social economist, Gunnar Myrdal, also objected to the term "riots" to describe these racial pogroms. He preferred to call this phenomenon "a terrorization or massacre ... a magnified, or mass, lynching."[56]  :* "Riot" was often a pretextual euphemism for "nigger hunt," and trumped-up fears of insurrection became the pretext for routing entire black communities. These riot death totals did not capture public attention because the "riot" label repositioned whites as acting in self-defense, which is not a crime. Thus the victims of the "riot" became marauders, killed within lawful defenses to murder charges. Pretext, euphemism, and calculated mischaracterization were central features of the public discourse throughout the era of the most intense racial violence. These strategies make many of the news accounts and eyewitness reports of reasons for racial violence highly unreliable. More importantly, there are simply no records at all for many "riots."[57] Finally, following the Wilmington massacre, in Nov 1898, the African American community tried to tell the rest of the nation what was happening, as exemplified by an anonymous woman who wrote a desperate plea to President McKinley requesting federal protection (her letter went unanswered). But it was instead the white supremacists whose version of the story became the nationally accepted one, a process that began immediately and culminated a few weeks later when Alfred Waddell, a former Confederate officer and one of the supremacist leaders, wrote “The Story of the Wilmington, N.C., Race Riots” for the popular publication Collier's. Waddell’s story, accompanied by H. Ditzler’s cover illustration of marauding armed African Americans, led to the designation of the coup and massacre as a "race riot," a description that has continued to this day.[17] I hope Wikipedia will use accuracy to right this wrong.


  1. ^ Day, Meagan (Sep 21, 2016). "The history of the Tulsa race massacre that destroyed America's wealthiest black neighborhood". Timeline. 
  2. ^ Cohen, Tony. "Sidedoor Podcast. Episode 3: Confronting the Past: The Story of the Tulsa Race Massacre". Smithsonian Institute. 
  3. ^ a b Lopez, German (Jun 1, 2016). "An eyewitness account of the horrific attack that destroyed Black Wall Street". Vox. 
  4. ^ Keyes, Allison (May 27, 2016). "A Long-Lost Manuscript Contains a Searing Eyewitness Account of the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921". Smithsonian Insitute. 
  5. ^ "Racial Justice and Civil Rights: YWCA Tulsa History". YWCA Tulsa. 
  6. ^ "The Black Cultural Center Visits Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" (PDF). Purdue University Black Cultural Center. Nov 1, 2016. 
  7. ^ Weber, Brandon (Feb 19, 2016). "Ever Heard Of 'Black Wall Street'?". The Progressive. 
  8. ^ Nelson, Laura J. (Jun 14, 2016). "The worst mass shooting? A look back at massacres in U.S. history". Los Angeles Times. 
  9. ^ a b Krugler, David (Feb 16, 2015). "America's Forgotten Mass Lynching: When 237 People Were Murdered In Arkansas". The Daily Beast.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "The_Daily_Beast" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ Plagianos, Irene (Sep 18, 2015). "Downtown Panel Will Tackle Legacy of One of Nation's Deadliest Race Riots". DNA Info. 
  11. ^ Barth, Jay (Apr 20, 2017). "Remembering Elaine". Arkansas Times. 
  12. ^ "Elaine Race Massacre Briefs and Records: A list of the 1919 Elaine Race Massacre court documents from litigation in the Arkansas courts, U. S. District Court, and U. S. Supreme Court". University of Arkansas Law Library. Feb 12, 2016. 
  13. ^ Hogan, Randy (Aug 1, 2016). "Helena screenwriter highlights little-known "Elaine Massacre"". Marion Evening Times. 
  14. ^ Johnson, J. Chester. "Evanescence: The Elaine Race Massacre". Green Mountains Review. 
  15. ^ a b Sainz, Adrian (May 31, 2016). "150 years after Memphis massacre, marker shows struggle". Associated Press. 
  16. ^ Jennings, Jay (Jun 22, 2008). "12 Innocent Men". New York Times. 
  17. ^ a b Railton, Ben (Nov 25, 2014). "What We Talk About When We Talk About 'Race Riots'". Talking Points Memo. 
  18. ^ a b Blank, Christopher (May 2, 2016). "Do The Words 'Race Riot' Belong On A Historic Marker In Memphis?". National Public Radio. 
  20. ^ Perkiss, Abagail (Dec 10, 2014). "Why the difference between a 'race riot' and a 'protest' matters for every American". The Daily Dot. 
  21. ^ Buescher, John. "East St. Louis Massacre". 
  22. ^ Selvaggi, Shaundra. "What's in a Word? Critics Argue Appropriateness of 'Race Riot' to Describe 1866 Massacre in Memphis". Atlanta Black Star. 
  23. ^ Dries, Bill (Mar 22, 2016). "1866 Massacre Author Says Riot Has Important Lessons". Memphis Daily News. 
  24. ^ O'Neil, Tim. "Look Back 250 • Race hatred, workforce tensions explode in East St. Louis in 1917". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 
  25. ^ Lakin, Matthew (Feb 9, 2011). A Dark Night: The Knoxville Race Riot of 1919. San Francisco Bay View. 
  26. ^ Riot in Mississippi. The New York Times. Mar 8, 1871. 
  27. ^ Stockley, Grif (Feb 9, 2011). Blood in Their Eyes: The Elaine Race Massacres of 1919. University of Arkansas Press. 
  28. ^ Stockley, Grif; Whayne, Jeannie M. (2002). Federal Troops and the Elaine Massacres: A Colloquy. The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 
  29. ^ "Prologue: Special Issue on Federal Records and African American History". Vol. 29, number=2. The National Archives. 1997. 
  30. ^ Wormser, Richard. Red Summer. PBS. 
  31. ^ Lakin, Matthew (2000). A Dark Night: The Knoxville Race Riot of 1919 (PDF). Journal of East Tennessee History. p. 24. 
  32. ^ Schermerhorn, Calvin (May 8, 2016). Civil-Rights Laws Don't Always Stop Racism: Although the 1866 Memphis Massacre happened 150 years ago, it still has a powerful legacy in the South. The Atlantic. 
  33. ^ Kudinger, Matthew (2004). "Racial Rhetoric: The Detroit Free Press and Its Part in the Detroit Race Riot of 1863" (PDF). University of Michigan. 
  34. ^ Blum, Edward J.; Poole, W. Scott (2005). Vale of Tears: New Essays on Religion and Reconstruction. Mercer University Press. 
  35. ^ Baker, Bruce E (2005). This Mob Will Surely Take My Life. Continuum UK Press. 
  36. ^ "County, once booming, now shadows town it used to rival". The Augusta Chronicle. Feb 16, 2004. 
  37. ^ Documents of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Forty-Fourth Congress. Ellenton Massacre: Telegrams from Sheriff Jordan. United States Senate. Jan 1, 1877. pp. 510–538. 
  38. ^ "The Southern Massacres". New York Times. May 25, 1877. 
  39. ^ "The Charleston Riot" (PDF). The Newberry Herald. Nov 16, 1876. 
  40. ^ "RIOTING AT NEW ORLEANS". Los Angeles Herald - The Hearst Corporation. Mar 13, 1895. 
  41. ^ Birchard, George (Aug 10, 2016). "Wilmington NC Massacre, Terror & White Supremacist Coup of 1898: Trump Went There". The Daily Kos. 
  42. ^ Lion Sr., Prather H. (1984). We Have Taken a City: Wilmington Racial Massacre and Coup of 1898. Associated University Press. 
  43. ^ "How The Only Coup D'Etat In U.S. History Unfolded". NPR. Aug 17, 2008. 
  44. ^ Lion Sr., Prather H. (1988). The Origins of the Phoenix Racial Massacre of 1898. New York: Greenwood Press. 
  45. ^ Finnegan, Terrence (1988). A Deed So Accursed: Lynching in Mississippi and South Carolina, 1881-1940. University of Virginia Press. 
  46. ^ "The Lynchings in the United States: The Massacre of Negroes in Atlanta". Le Petit Journal. Oct 7, 1906. 
  47. ^ Brawley, Bejamin (1921). A Social History of the American Negro, Being a History of the Negro Problem ... The MacMillian Company. p. 318. 
  48. ^ Buescher, John. "East St. Louis Massacre". 
  49. ^ Patrick, James (Feb 22, 2000). "The Horror of the East St. Louis Massacre: Exodus" (PDF). Urbana School District. 
  50. ^ DuBois, W.E.B.; Gruening, Martha (1917). "Massacre at East St. Louis". Vol. 14 no. 5. The Crisis - NAACP Magazine. pp. 219–238. 
  51. ^ Wells, Ida B. (1917). The East St. Louis Massacre: The Greatest Outrage of the Century. Chicago: The Negro Fellowship Herald Press. 
  52. ^ Patrick, James (Jul 3, 1917). "Negro Massacre By Mobs". Chicago Tribune. 
  53. ^ Hurd, Carlos F. (Jul 3, 1917). "POST-DISPATCH MAN, AN EYE-WITNESS, DESCRIBES MASSACRE OF NEGROES". Chicago Tribune. 
  54. ^ Wells, Ida B. (1895). The Red Record. p. 57-58. 
  55. ^ Du Bois, W.E.B. (1935). Black Reconstruction. p. 674. 
  57. ^ Coleman Jordan, Emma (2003). A History Lesson: Reparations for What?. Georgetown University Law Center. p. 610. 
Justbean (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PSR B1257+12 CPSR B1257+12 d – According to the most recent naming conventions, the proper name of this object is PSR B1257+12 d. Nonith (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PSR B1257+12 BPSR B1257+12 c – According to the most recent naming conventions, the proper name of this object is PSR B1257+12 c. Nonith (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PSR B1257+12 APSR B1257+12 b – According to the most recent naming conventions, the proper name of this object is PSR B1257+12 b. Nonith (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fermi–Pasta–Ulam problemFermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou problem – The 2008 article in Physics Today cited in the Wikipedia article called for the FPU problem to be renamed to the FPUT problem. While it has been slow to retroactively rename the problem to reflect the contributions of Tsingou, current sources call it by its new name. I'm requesting that we update the page to reflect the name used in recent literature. Here are some contemporary sources that reflect the name change: *Vibrational resonances in 1D Morse and FPU lattices (2008 - within the intro paragraph the authors reference Tsingou and use FPUT to refer to the problem for the remainder of the paper) *Coupled Oscillator Models with no Scale Separation (2008) *Caltech physics PhD thesis (2009) *Advances in Chemical Physics, Vol 153 (2013) *Scaling perspective on intramolecular vibrational energy flow: analogies, insights, and challenges (2013) *Holographic Thermalization, stability of AdS, and the Fermi–Pasta–Ulam–Tsingou paradox (2014) *Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics talk (2015) *Leeds University lecture notes on FPUT (2016) *University of Trieste computational physics lecture notes mentioning FPUT (2016) *Early time evolution of a localized nonlinear excitation in the β-FPUT chain (2017) *Study unravels long-held Fermi puzzle tied to nonlinear systems (2017 - this happened last week) While it is true that the old literature refers to the FPU problem, the current community has embraced the name change and Wikipedia should reflect this. Blueclaw (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PlymouthPlymouth, Devon – While it is an important city and probably the most significant term of this name, the city in England does not meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so should be disambiguated. This can be seen from pageview analysis which shows that the English city does not attract anything close to a majority of views (its under 40% if just the top 4 terms are considered, and drops to 30% when looking at all terms). Previous discussions, like the last in 2014, tend to devolve into in a head-to-head comparison of the places in Devon and Massachusetts - a contest the one in the UK "wins". However, there are more Plymouths than just the towns at the start and end of the Mayflower's voyage. Nilfanion (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


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


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.

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