Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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:

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.

  • 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 18 October 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. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting

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 and in table format. 40 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

October 18, 2017

  • (Discuss)Dynasty of HeavenCelestial Empire – To restore the original and correct title, which was moved with no discussion. The old/new title is the standard English title, which is used in the article itself and in the template, "Names of China." The Google Search "Dynasty of Heaven" finds mostly pages with the separate words, not the phrase; the Google Search "Celestial Empire" finds thousands of hits, including dictionary entries. I would simply move the page back, but the title is blocked by the redirect to the disambig page. The argument that the title should be what one reader translates from the Chinese is possibly good faith but bad reasoning. is making a number of such moves, as explained on his or her userpage. ch (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TNT (TV channel)TNT (U.S. TV channel) – I would like to reopen this move request back five years later. The main reason I would like to see this article moved is because the Russian channel is "considered to be one of the five most popular TV channels in Russia".[1] I do not speak Russian myself, but if this true, then comparatively, Russian TNT is a federal channel, while American TNT is a cable channel, not a big channel like ABC or NBC. Plus, American TNT went by its full name, Turner Network Television, until 1995, and Russian TNT was launched only three years later. So while TNT is more known on the English Wikipedia as it is an American channel, I cannot see this as a primary topic "TV channel"-wise. JE98 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Association of Performing Arts PresentersAssociation of Performing Arts Professionals – This organization changed our name back in January. The press release can be found here at: https://www.apap365.org/Portals/1/PDFs/Press%20Releases/APAP%20Name%20Change%20release%209.5.17.pdf This name change was to make the name of the organization more inclusion of the performing arts as a whole and the individuals who work within it. Our website, office address, and logo have changed as well with the name change. Sakura Cartelet Talk 00:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

October 17, 2017

  • (Discuss)Nkhotakota Game ReserveNkhotakota Wildlife Reserve – There are some sources that use "Nkhotakota Game Reserve", but "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" is used much more often in secondary sourcing, and by African Parks, the nonprofit conservation organization managing the reserve. Here is a link to the reserve's page on African Parks' website, and following are appearances of the name in news and journal sources: CNN, The Daily Telegraph, HuffPost, National Geographic, etc. In terms of search engine results, searching "Nkhotakota Game Reserve" at Google yields 20,300 results, and searching "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" yields 53,300 results. "Nkhotakota Game Reserve" should redirect users to the "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" article. Full disclosure: I am submitting this request on behalf of African Parks via the Wyss Foundation, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. This is part of a series of requests to create and expand several Wikipedia articles related to African Parks, and the second move request, following the successful move of the African Parks article itself (see Talk:African Parks). You can learn more here: User:Inkian Jason/African Parks. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hurricane Ophelia (2017)Hurricane Ophelia – Honestly this one looks to be the notorious one, given it did over a billion in the UK/Ireland. Although 2011 was stronger, that one did minimal damage. Small chance this is like Isaac 2012 again where it does the most damage (as C1) in the billions but not the main topic. Thoughts? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

October 16, 2017

  • (Discuss)Dharamsala airportKangra Airport – back to official name, as at World Aero site [12] and the airport's facebook page at [13]. One can see in the photos of the airport at its Facebook page that the name is 'Kangra Airport'. Funandtrvl (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Samantha Ruth PrabhuSamantha (Indian actress) – She isn't credited by her full name in films, and even the media refers to her as just "Samantha". No admin will permit this article's move to "Samantha (actress)", citing other actresses sharing the same name. Plus, with her recent marriage, she's likely to replace "Ruth Prabhu" with "Akkineni" as her last name. But neither of the last names will be as common as her mononym. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Thomas M. DavisTom Davis (Virginia politician)WP:COMMONNAME. Davis is more popularly known as "Tom" than "Thomas M." as shown in various sources: * His official Congressional website (archived from 2008); * The Associated Press has referred to him as "Tom" like in this July 13, 2007 story as well as on June 12, 2008 and January 11, 2010. * A New York Times Magazine profile from 2008 is titled "Tom Davis gives up". * A 2014 George Mason University press release, "Former Congressman Tom Davis Named George Mason University’s Rector" * A 2016 Washington Post article, "Metro hires former Va. congressman Tom Davis to help in push for more federal dollars". * The Washington Post also had "Tom Davis" as his byline in a 2017 opinion piece. Also, there are ~148k google search results for "Tom Davis" +Virginia Congressman, in contrast to ~140k for "Thomas M. Davis" + Virginia Congressman. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 13:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ŞanlıurfaUrfa – Per WP:COMMONNAME, also more WP:CONCISE. Google Books search returns 203,000 results for "Urfa", but only 17,000 for "Şanlıurfa" and 8,820 for "Sanliurfa". Also, Google Books Ngram Viewer (click here) confirms that "Urfa" is more common than "Şanlıurfa" or "Sanliurfa" to refer to the place in English language reliable sources, by a very big margin. Khestwol (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 13:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Malcolm M. LucasMalcolm Lucas – Subject is not universally known by a name including his middle initial (see both obituaries cited in the article); "Malcolm Lucas" is currently occupied by a WP:TWODABS disambiguation page, for which the other entry, "Mal Lucas", is for a person rarely referred to as "Malcolm" at all. Between the two, a former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court would seem to be the clear primary topic over a fairly random footballer. The judge also pulls more than five times as many pageviews as the footballer, which could make the case even if the footballer was known as "Malcolm". bd2412 T 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

October 15, 2017

  • (Discuss)Spot the dogSpot (puppy character) – Although "Spot the dog" (the outcome of the recent move review) is an improvement over the old title (Spot the Dog), the proposed title would be superior for disambiguating among the other topics listed at Spot and would describe the common element of the topics discussed in the article (books, television series, home video productions, albums, and CD-ROM titles). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Organ (anatomy)Organ – Primary topic as suggested by CFCF and and supported by Tom (LT). Link to pageviews in previous section. Iztwoz (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Proto-Tibeto-Burman languageJames Matisoff's reconstruction of Proto-Tibeto-Burman – NoGhost and JohnBlackburne moved the page to its current location, without leaving a comment on the talk page. The talk page already discusses the reason for mentioning Matisoff, namely that the article only describes his system. Removing his name from the article without otherwise changing the content of the article is a substantial misrepresentation of the article's content. Gong Hwang Cherng, Nishida Tatsuo, and others have published views on Tibeto-Burman reconstruction, but this article only treat's Matisoff's opinions. Tibetologist (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Henry Bolton (British politician)Henry Bolton – As with Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, the article title of their Wikipedia page is simply their name - no (politician) or (British politician) next to it. Now that Henry Bolton is the leader of the UK Independence Party, the title of his Wikipedia page should simply be his name. I have requested the page currently under Henry Bolton to be deleted as I do not feel it is necessary. Lighthouse3050 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

October 14, 2017

  • (Discuss)Clermont SetClermont Club – Higher level name, the Clermont Set was a group of people who met at this famous London gambling club, which needs its own article, which will incorporate text about membership, including the Clermont Set Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

October 13, 2017

  • (Discuss)Decimal markDecimal marks – This is a naturally plural topic; the article is not about "a decimal mark" or "the decimal mark", but about decimal marks as a class, which vary by language and usage contexts within some languages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  21:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rolex Kentucky Three-Day EventLand Rover Kentucky Three-Day Event – The title sponsorship of this event has changed from Rolex Watch to Land Rover. This was announce on October 12, 2017. Press Releases can be found here: https://www.usef.org/media/press-releases/land-rover-north-america-announces-title; https://kentuckythreedayevent.com/land-rover-north-america-announces-title-sponsorship-kentucky-three-day-event/ Imjohnson (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pecheneg machine gunPKP Pecheneg – Of all the variations of this machine guns name, I believe "PKP Pecheneg" is the one that is the most accurate and unambiguous, without being excessively long (which I feel "PKP Pecheneg machine gun" is). Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sung Wong Toi StationTo Kwa Wan Station – Last month, it was reported by a few news sources that someone found a map where the station was titled with this name, so the page was moved. However, since MTR Corporation did not officially announce a name change and said that the map was preliminary (see the article text), the article is now incorrectly titled and should be moved back to its original name until the company has figured out what to name the station. Pinging Sameboat, who performed the original page move. Jc86035 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

October 12, 2017

  • (Discuss)Amazon sheep frogHamptophryne boliviana – The name most commonly used in reliable sources, cf. WP:COMMONNAME, is Hamptophryne boliviana. I cannot find a single reliable source for the vernacular name "Amazon sheep frog", even though the many sites mirroring Wikipedia content can give an impression that the name has some validity. The only independent site is CalPhoto page (I am assuming that iNaturalist got the common name from Wikipedia, whereas the CalPhoto page seems to predate the WP article). Vernacular name "sheep frog" usually refers to a different genus (Hypopachus), so it is a mystery to me where this vernacular name actually comes from. The only vernacular name recognized by the Amphibian Species of the World and IUCN is "Bolivian bleating frog", a name that was introduced in 1995 by Frank and Ramus. However, this name is much less common than the scientific name. Simple Google search gives 14,400 hits for "Hamptophryne boliviana", 273 for "Bolivian bleating frog", and 350 for "Amazon sheep frog". Although Google includes reliable as well as non-reliable sources, the difference is so overwhelming that it should be clear that the most common name of this species is its scientific name. Micromesistius (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sutiya KingdomChutiya Kingdom – Chutiya Kingdom is the spelling preferred by reliable sources. The original spelling of this article (created in 2006) was Chutiya Kingdom. The page was moved to Sutiya Kingdom on 17 October 2011 with the edit summary, "Chutiya is derogatory term in Hindi. The local pronunciation is "Sutiya" not Chutiya. The revised title is in more sync as it conforms to the local pronunciation.". All mentions of Chutiya have been removed since including in a 27 April 2016 edit with the summary, "The correct Assamese pronunciation is 'Sutiya', although a few might right 'Chutiya' in English. 'Chutiya' is a derogatory word in Hindi and should be avoided. All earlier references to Chutiya have been moved to 'Sutiya' to respect sentiments!" I moved the page back to its original title earlier today and have been reverted with the edit summary, "The Assamese pronunciation of the word begins with Alveolar consonant 'S' with Close Vowel 'U', refer corres. page in Assamese. Surnames (proper nouns) spelt differently can't be a reference point." The reasons provided are, IMO, either spurious or irrelevant to English Wikipedia. According to (all) the sources cited in this article, * Gait, Edward (p. 37): "Chutiya kingdom at the time when the Ahoms entered Assam ..." * Prakash, Col. Ved (p. 170): "War with the Chutiyas The very next year (1513), the Chutiya Raja ..." * Pathak, Guptajit (p. 108): "The Chutiya King Dhirnarayan attacked the Ahom Kingdom both ..." * Bhushan, Chandra (p. 30): "In 1523, Ahom king Chuhung-Mung attacked on the kingdom of Chutia and succeeded in subjugating their empire. The Chutia Empire became a part of Ahom Empire ..." * I do not see Punyadhar Gogoi's book available on the Internet. Besides Edward Gait above, the other authors who I've seen frequently cited in Assamese history articles are Kanaklal Barua and Yasmin Saikia. * Early History of Kamarupa (p. XIV): "The Chutia Kingdom, in the extreme north-east of Kamarupa ..." * Saikia, Yasmin (2004). Fragmented memories: struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India. Duke University Press.  (p. 6): "The other center of writing was Sadiya, capital of the Chutia kingdom in eastern Assam ..." Other sources: * Lahiri, Nayanjot (1984). "The Pre-Ahom Roots of Medieval Assam". Social Scientist. 12 (6): 60–69. JSTOR 3517004. doi:10.2307/3517004. : "The Ahoms absorbed some of their Naga, Moran and Barahi neighbours, along with large sections of the Chutiya and Kachari tribes." * Guha, Amalendu (1983). The Ahom Political System: An Enquiry into the State Formation Process in Medieval Assam (1228-1714). pp. 3–34. JSTOR 3516963. : "He first annexed Habung in 1519 and later also the rest of the Hinduised Chutiya kingdom as well ..." * Wink, André (2002). Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th-13th centuries. BRILL. ISBN 0391041746.  (p. 263): "To the northwest of the Ahoms was the Chutia kingdom" * Momin, Mignonette; Mawlong, Cecile A.; Qādrī, Fuz̤ail Aḥmad (2004). Society and Economy in North-East India. Regency Publications. p. 47. ISBN 9788189233402.  (p. 48): "two main views on the origin of the Chutiyas: (a) that the Chutiyas were so called because they had originally occupied the chut or mountaintop ..." ... and lots more on Google Books. While I had initially assumed that this was a case of editorial bowdlerisation, there are some reliable sources which do prefer Sutiya. However, I could only find 3 such examples in total on Google Books of which only 2 are of interest here: * Choudhury, Sanghamitra (2016). Women and Conflict in India. Routledge. ISBN 9781317553625.  (p. 50): "The recorded history of Arunachal Pradesh is available from the chronicles of Ahoms and Sutiya." * Chima, Jugdep S. (2015). Ethnic Subnationalist Insurgencies in South Asia: Identities, Interests and Challenges to State Authority. Routledge. ISBN 9781317557067.  (p. 57): "The latter with their origins in the Sutiya indigenous ethnicity ruled Assam before ..." Search results comparison on JSTOR (collocated with Ahom to reduce false positives): # Chutiya Ahom: 22 results # Chutia Ahom: 17 results (with some false positives) # Sutiya Ahom: 0 results # Sutia Ahom: 1 false positive The Ngram confirms this even when allowing for false positives. All in all, Chutiya Kingdom is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. Chutia Kingdom is not too far away. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SnowdomeSnowDome – The brand name is spelt SnowDome, not Snowdome. This is causing brand issues as SnowDome advertise using capital S and D. Prajit Roy (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Albert de LouvainAlbert of Louvain – Articles and books written in English (including the academic article cited in the article itself) use "Albert of Leuven" or "Albert of Louvain" (with a slight majority for the latter). These include Laura Napran's 2005 translation of Gilbert of Mons's Chronicle of Hainaut, modern editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints, Luc Duerloo's Dynasty and Piety (2016), and Jasper van der Steen, Memory Wars in the Low Countries (2015) Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

October 11, 2017

  • (Discuss)Native AmericansNative Americans (disambiguation) – Redirect Native Americans to Native Americans in the United States, per WP:PRIMARY. Some of the entries on the disambiguation page appear to be original research; e.g. First Nations of Canada are not referred to as Native Americans (except inasmuch as they're within the category of indigenous peoples of the Americas, which "Native American" is (rarely) used to mean, as a confusingly ambiguous blanket term). The DAB page's current breakdown of just about every article we have on subtopics of indigenous peoples of the Americas isn't how we do DAB pages. No one ever writes "Native Americans" and specifically and only means "indigenous peoples in Ecuador", so entries like that should not be on this page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Данные по аудитории". Россия → Неделя → Среднесуточная доля. TNS Россия, Media & Custom Research. Retrieved 2015-05-17. 
  2. ^ *Yahoo Sports on Twitter *Yahoo Sports on Instagram *Yahoo Sports on Facebook *Yahoo Sports: Football & More on iTunes Preview *Yahoo Sports on Google Play
  3. ^ Hotărârea Comitetului de Urgență din 24 august 2017 frf.ro
  4. ^ Schedule. frfotbal.ro
Rhinen (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hong Kong Stock ExchangeThe Stock Exchange of Hong Kong – The official name was "The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited" (where the abb. SEHK came from), by MoS, no legal suffix is required. While Hong Kong Stock Exchange was both the common name AND the legal name of the old Hong Kong Stock Exchange, that was ONE of the stock exchange that merged to "The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited" in 1986. HKEX was actually refer to current parent company Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing. Matthew_hk tc 18:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grandin stationGrandin/Government Centre station – Currently the official recognized name for this station is "Grandin/Government Centre station". As far as I can tell the City of Edmonton Website, station/train announcements and current signage refer to it as such (I can list numerous references for this as required). Since all other Edmonton LRT stations with a "/" in their name have already been moved to accommodate, I motion that the same thing be done with "Grandin station". I can see that this was lightly discussed a decade ago at the top of the talk page however I believe the circumstances are now different and a move is warranted. Vanstrat (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)United Negro College FundUNCF – Per WP:ABOUTSELF. Organization hasn't used "United Negro College Fund" in years, and consistently brands itself as UNCF, without an expansion. In general and sometimes official usage it is also referred to as the United Fund, but it's not is now certain that isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. There are multiple reliable sources that the old, long name has been actively abandoned/repudiated by the organization [21]. The short form is also that typically used in the press, who rarely expand it [22], and "United Fund" is also frequently used, without further elaboration [23]. I don't care which we use; it just shouldn't be the name that is not what the organization or sources use any longer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    Updated to strike alternative new name based on WP:COMMONNAME analyses below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  03:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Catholicism (term)Catholicism (concept) – As the proposal to merge/split this article has been rejected in favor of keeping this as a stand alone article, and because many inbound "Catholicism" links are meant more correctly for the Catholic Church article, I would propose this article be renamed to address the concept of Catholicism, to more clearly differentiate it from the article "Catholic (term)". –Zfish118talk 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (Canada)Opposition House Leader (Canada) – The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is the Leader of the Official Opposition. The current article is discribing the Opposition House Leader, who is not the Leader of the Opposition. See: 1. [24] 2. [25] ("Notwithstanding anything in the Parliament of Canada Act, the lands described in Schedule II and the buildings thereon shall be maintained as a residence for the person holding the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, in this Act called “the Leader of the Opposition”.") 3. [26] Zhantongz (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References


See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=805800008"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves
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