Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request. A move review evaluates the close of a move discussion to determine whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and 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 all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title of the page that expresses any objection to the new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that 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

Technical requests

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 June 2018" and sign the post 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 18 June 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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 18 June 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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 18 June 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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 18 June 2018

– why Example (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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 18 June 2018

– why Example (talk) 13:47, 18 June 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. 34 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

June 18, 2018

  • (Discuss)Grey jayCanada jay – See the section directly above. It is being widely reported (refs below) that the American Ornithological Society has accepted a proposal to formally list this species as "Canada jay", reversing a 61-year-old naming decision that nobody seems to be sure was rational in the first place. It's also reported that the AOS will formally announce the change in next month's issue of The Auk, and that the IOC will likewise follow suit in their next semiannual update. Besides that formality, the species has very clearly strong national ties to Canada (as a candidate for its National Bird) and naming the article "Canada jay" solves the "grey/gray" disagreement (evident in the links below). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fortnite Battle Royale → ? – According to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". I believe the current titles of Fortnite and Fortnite Battle Royale fail that criterion. The Battle Royale mode (BR) of the game is far more popular and googling 'fortnite' returns only results about BR (except for Wikipedia article Fortnite (Save the World/PvE mode). Media very often refer to BR mode as simply 'Fortnite' [1][2][3], and in coverage of the PvE mode they refer to the game as 'Fortnite: Save the World' or 'PvE mode of Fortnite' [4][5]. Therefore, I would propose that Fortnite Battle Royale be moved to Fortnite and Fortnite to Fortnite: Save the World, Fortnite (PvE mode) or some other precise title.
    However, according to WP:NC-VG, "Unofficial titles are not acceptable." and 'Fortnite: Save the World' is unofficial. But 'Fortnite Battle Royale' is also not an official title of a game. Epic Games refers to Fortnite BR simply as Fortnite and 'Battle Royale' is a mode. On stores of several platforms, including iOS and Nintendo Switch, Fortnite Battle Royale mode is available as 'Fortnite'. 'Fortnite: Save the World' is reffered to by Epic Games as 'PvE mode'.
    With WP:NC-VG and the 'Naturalness' criterion of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in mind, I believe that the best idea would be to move Fortnite Battle Royale to Fortnite (Battle Royale mode), move Fortnite to Fortnite (PvE mode), and make Fortnite redirect to Fortnite (Battle Royale mode). Please add any comments and suggestions regarding the request and the proposed names. Biexx (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lazy FPU state leakLazyFP – "LazyFP" is the name for the "Lazy FPU state leak" used by the discoverers (see The proposed name also probably gets around the concerns mentioned on the talk page related to naming conventions: it is an authoritative name that does not confuse various related aspects of the security issue. Note that LazyFP is a redirect page that currently points to a related topic. Kiwi128 (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Toshiba Kawasaki Brave ThundersKawasaki Brave Thunders – 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. Ntsctalk (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of The Nerdist Podcast episodesList of ID10T with Chris Hardwick episodes – As already noted in the page, the program changed its title as of February 6, 2018; normally I would have just moved the page myself but due to the WP:BLP issues with the subject that came up this weekend it's best to request this move to leave a paper trail, along with concerns about the numbers in the title where it may be easier to just use Idiot. I have also done the same nom with the main Nerdist page already. Nate (chatter) 03:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Nerdist PodcastID10T with Chris Hardwick – As already noted in the page, the program changed its title as of February 6, 2018; normally I would have just moved the page myself but due to the WP:BLP issues with the subject that came up this weekend it's best to request this move to leave a paper trail, along with concerns about the numbers in the title where it may be easier to just use Idiot. I'll be doing the same nomination with the list of episodes. Nate (chatter) 03:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

June 17, 2018

  • (Discuss)Sasha (Jamaican DJ)Sasha (Jamaican deejay)
    In 2015, the article was moved from Sasha (deejay) to Sasha (Jamaican DJ) due to Sasha (Welsh DJ) (formerly (DJ)) confusing readers. Although it is noteworthy that the former titles may be confused with eachother, these two artists are not of the same profession. Disc jockey and Deejay (Jamaican) are two different things! The hatenote of Deejay (Jamaican) even says "Not to be confused with disc jockey" which is exactly what has happened here... Admittedly, it would not be best to revert to their former titles, as this would confuse readers and editors once more and likely spark another move request. So all I could think to propose would be leaving Sasha (Welsh DJ) alone, and moving (Jamaican DJ) to (Jamaican deejay), and keeping hatnotes the same. Please list any other potential ideas here. Lazz_R 18:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Prince HarryPrince Harry, Duke of Sussex – Following extensive discussion, this appears to be the title that meets the most essentials - it is unique, it is in line with article naming conventions, and it is consistent with articles for people of similar status, such as Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The most recent move resulted in the present title, for which there is (in my opinion) no clear consensus. I do not think it is necessary for all the arguments to be repeated here, and it would be helpful if those voting could restrict themselves to voicing their feelings on the move actually being proposed, rather than some proposal which is not currently being made. Deb (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

June 16, 2018

  • (Discuss)Michael Peterson (criminal)Death of Kathleen Peterson – Michael Peterson is notable for the death of his wife and all the legal proceedings relating to it, including at one time being convicted of her murder and currently being convicted of her manslaughter. The majority of content in this article is indeed about that case, and even big chunks of the biographical content - such as his involvement in the Vietnam war and his life in Germany - have eventual relevancy to the case. The media about him is all really about the case and his level of involvement. WP:SINGLEEVENT says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person", and yet we don't even have an article about this "event". It would be far more appropriate to give this article the name "Death of Kathleen Peterson", with the lead fleshed out to describe the circumstances of her death, and the "Personal and professional life" section renamed "Michael Peterson", as is common in crime articles such as Soham murders. Some rearranging might also be necessary but I'd be happy to prepare a draft in my sandbox before a move if people felt that was necessary. Loeba (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Isaaq genocideGenocide against the Isaaq – This is a follow-up to the aborted RfC above. WP:NOTNEO states that "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title". I believe that this is such a case. There are plenty of reliable sources that call the topic a genocide, but few that use the "Isaaq genocide" label, and I think the proposed new name fits the WP:DESCRIPTDIS criteria better. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Egyptian invasion of Sudan 1820–24Egyptian conquest of the Sudan (1820–24) – First off, I've noticed that sources use "conquest" a bit more commonly than "invasion". For Muhammad Ali's campaign of 1820, see this, this, this, this, this, andmany more. For the Anglo-Egyptian campaign, see the results here. I also believe the term "conquest" is broader, and that "invasion" only covers the initial phase of such campaigns, excluding other aspects like the formal annexation, etc. Secondly, see WP:THE. The definite article is omitted when it comes to the title of the main Sudan and Sudan (region) articles. Yes, nowadays the is being increasingly dropped in favor of just "Sudan", usually when we're referring to the modern day state (which is, by the way, officially named "Republic of the Sudan"). But even so, we don't write "invasion of Netherlands/United States/United Kingdom"; we have to add the definite article. Same thing goes for Sudan, especially in the historical context. I also feel like History of Sudan (among other subarticles) should be moved to History of the Sudan, but I'll see how things go in this RM first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)JavaJava (island) – I opened this move request since the recent move request suggest that the current title should be about the programming language while, on the other hand, this move suggest that the current title should be disambiguation page. Although the editor that made the recent move request edited it later, he/she doesn't change the notice in the mainspace so maybe not many editor join in the discussion. ===Arguments in favor of the proposed move=== ====The programming language has more daily average pageviews than the island==== Based on the pageview from July 2015–present the programming language has about 4,900 daily average pageviews while the island is 1,700. ===Arguments against the proposed move (with counter arguments)=== ===="Java" should be about the island with population more that 140 million people==== Population cannot determine whether an article has a primary topic (the article is about programming language or island) or not at all (the article is disambiguation). For example Georgia (country) (with 3.7 million population) has more daily average pageview than Georgia (U.S. state) (10 million population). ====The programming language is named after the island==== Based on this logic then Mercury should be about the Roman god (which is not since the planet and the chemical element are named after the Roman god). ===Title choice for the island article=== Retains the island's common name per WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with Hawaii (island), Newfoundland (island), Malta (island), and many others. Hddty. (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)JakTVJak-TV – This is the name currently used in the article itself and in English language web pages for the network. Alternate forms are in use in foreign language pages and in various logos, with or without a space and capitalised or not. Lithopsian (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Esther De JongEsther de Jong – This move, apparently on unsubstantiated request of the unsigned editor above, frankly should not have been conducted. In Dutch naming, a tussenvoegsel is never capitalized when the full name is used. Many Anglicized versions of Dutch names do use capital letters, but De Jong is a Dutch person, making this a misapplication of those substandard norms. Reliable sources support this (and probably actually checked it with her—[14], [15], [16]). Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

June 15, 2018

  • (Discuss)Brockhole Lake District Visitor CentreBrockhole – Neither the Brockhole website at nor the LDNPA website at seems to use any formal name other than just "Brockhole". We need redirects from all other variations of course and I've just created them from Brockhole on Windermere and Brockhole, the Lake District Visitor Centre, but the common name seems to be plain "Brockhole" so let's use it. I've expanded the hatnote at Brockholes and the one here, to help distintinguish two visitor attractions separated only by an "s". PamD 17:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kelly SadlerWhite House cancer comment controversy – This individual is a very junior former staffer who is primarily known for one event, and that event is surely much, much better known than her personally and her biography. In third party coverage the focus hasn't been as much on her personally as on the White House and how the comment by the White House and its employee reflects on the Trump administration. Only covering the comment, which was widely covered as an event, as a section in the biography of a virtually unknown individual isn't appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NU Hospitals SwedenNU Hospital Group – *As explained in previous entry, this article was moved to distinguish the organization from a Swedish one. However, this is better done by hatnotes at the top of the articles as I've now added. The Swedish organization needs to be titled "NU Hospital Group", because this is the official name. This is where I work, and "NU Hospitals" is wrong, and "NU Hospitals Sweden" is blatantly wrong, and would even imply a relationship to the Indian organization. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KupharQuffa – To better reflect common English usage and the native Arabic name. Search results: A case-insensitive Google ngram from 1900 through 2008 shows usage of quffa being larger than that of kuphar in written English. Google books: 4,160 - Quffa 2,860 - Kuphar Interestingly none of the Google books results for kuphar on the first page are about the boat, while several of the results on the first page for quffa are. Google scholar: 338 - Quffa 144 - Kuphar Also, "kuphar" is a homophone of a highly derogatory Arabic word (كفار kuffār, meaning "infidels"). This point is rather minor, although I worry that someone will go to the Arab world and start talking about "kuphar" and run into trouble. Chumash11 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Distorted (disambiguation)Distorted – There is no primary topic for the term (and if there is, it isn't the band). Move the band from the base name to a disambiguated title, and move the disambiguation page to the base name. (A page view analysis is here: note the film has now been released and likely to spike in popularity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)El Paso, TexasEl PasoEl Paso redirects here already, and this city in Texas seems to be the primary topic for this name. It seems that someone tried to start a move request in 2014, but there wasn't much movement on the request. Natg 19 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Waltz (International Standard) → ? – This "(International Standard)" thing isn't a proper parenthetic disambiguation, in being against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, in failing WP:CONCISE, and in the parenthetical matter not being a disambiguator, but part of a longer phrase, "international standard waltz" which is actually more commonly "international-style waltz". However, a thread at Talk:Glossary of partner dance terms suggests that this is just an Americanism. So, any of this probably fails WP:COMMONNAME or has some other issue. I thought the best approach might be the simple, neutral WP:NPOVTITLE "Waltz (standardized)". But there's also American-style, apparently, and it's also standardized. I don't really know enough about the subject to be certain of anything other than that the current title is crap. Waltz (international) seems reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC); revised: 03:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)IamgoldIAMGOLD – The proper incorporated name of this company is all uppercase "IAMGOLD". Please see this legal corporate document:[1] on page 13. mmorel 00:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

June 14, 2018

  • (Discuss)Waterloo Campaign: 8–15 JuneWaterloo Campaign: Start of hostilitiesuser:MarcusBritish has already altered the title from that of the last WP:RM in 2015, but the title is still inaccurate. The campaign did not start until the 15 June, so including the date that preparations started in the title is confusing. It is not customary to include the dates for the preparations for a campaign as the start of the campaign: Eg Russian Campaign is dated as starting on 24 June 1812 when Napoleon's Grande Armée crossed the Neman River (not the day that Napoleon issued his commands for the forward concentration of his army), the Normandy landings are dated from D-Day (6th of June 1944) not the date that planning for the operation started back in 1942. PBS (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shiori KutsunaShioli Kutsuna – This page is titled "Shiori Kutsuna" and begins with "Shiori Kutsuna ..., sometimes spelled as Shioli Kutsuna", however, the use of "Shioli" seems to be far more prevalent. This spelling is used in her agency's profile page for her (linked as Official Website at the bottom of the article), and she was credited with this spelling in her two most recent films (Deadpool 2 and The Outsider) and surely more. This spelling has been used in her calendars and photobooks dating least as far back as 2010. It seems clear to me that "Shioli Kutsuna" is the preferred spelling, and using this spelling would be consistent with the page for Sola Aoi, another Japanese public figure who romanizes the Japanese R in her name as L. JLRishe (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 20:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Htangan languageLeinong language – Official ISO 639-3 name is: Leinong Naga Leinong, not Htangan, is used in all recent publications, including Wayesha, etc. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC) — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)WagahWahga – The official English spelling is WaHGa and not Wagah. According to the Punjab Gazette published on 22 August 2017, Wahga Zone has been established, replacing Wahga Tehsil according to the new Local government in Punjab act. See #7[2]. Within the same document, Wagha is referred to as Union Council (UC 181). Also on Google Maps, it's also spelled "Wahga". I'd request a name change. HudairaViki (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KtunaxaKutenai – This is going to take some explaining, but I really believe the article should be at Kutenai, following the RM at Kutenai language which left the article at that title. The previous RM was misinformed on how widespread the form "Ktunaxa" is, both among the people themselves, and in the sources about them: *For starters, Kutenai is demonstrably the WP:COMMONNAME over "Ktunaxa". See Google Books ([17] vs. [18]), 21st century Google Books ([19] vs. [20]). It's also the most common in the academic literature (see McMillan & Yellowhorn, p. 180, Morgan, p. 1, Davis, p. 1371). *Other spellings like Kootenay and Kootenai are variants of the same name "Kutenai". Unlike other spellings, which occur in geographical names, "Kutenai" is almost exclusively used for the people and their language. * Equally importantly, "Kutenai" is the version used by the people in both Canada and the U.S. when referring to the Kutenai as a whole. BC Kutenai tend to use "Kootenay" and more recently "Ktunaxa", while Idaho and Montana Kutenai use "Kootenai"; this is reflected even in geographical names (see Kootenay River, aka the Kootenai River in the U.S.) However, "Kutenai people on both sides of the international border have begun to use this last spelling [Kutenai] as an international spelling of the name, thereby avoiding the distinctly Canadian and the distinctly U.S. spellings." (Morgan, p. 1, Davis, p. 1371). *Ktunaxa isn't the correct term for all Kutenai. It's actually just one of two words in the Kutenai language referring to the people. The other is Ksanka. The Montana Kutenai call themselves Ksanka exclusively in the native language and Kootenai (Kutenai, etc.) in English. They never call themselves Ktunaxa (Morgan, p. 1; Clark, p. 126). *Similarly, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the vast majority of sources about them do not use Ktunaxa in English. Given the national divide in the use of "Ktunaxa", this becomes an WP:ENGVAR issue. *Ktunaxa is the preferred version of many, but not all, Kutenai in Canada. Notably, the Ktunaxa Nation uses it. However, some Canadian Kutenai and organizations don't use that form; notably, the Lower Kootenay First Nation do not. * Fortunately, there's an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY. While Ktunaxa is unused in Montana and rare in Idaho, Kutenai and variants are in common use in British Columbia in reference to the people and their language.[21][22][23][24][25]. Especially as it's used as an international name in both countries, it's a point of WP:COMMONALITY between the various Kutenai/Ktunaxa groups. Per COMMONALITY, we should "Prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English." In short, "Ktunaxa", while the preferred name among British Columbia Ktunaxa, isn't an appropriate name for all people described in this article; "Kutenai" is an international version used by the people in both countries (satisfying WP:COMMONALITY), it is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is the name most used in scholarship. Cúchullain t/c 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Google bus protestsSan Francisco tech bus protests – A perusal of the sources on this has media referrals to the event cleanly split 50/50 between the terms "Google bus" (which was how they were first referred to) and "tech bus" (which quickly became a just-as-common term used). WP:COMMONTERM states: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The problems as mentioned in that guidance here are that the use of the term "Google bus" is pars pro toto — it only describes a segment of the actual buses involved in the protests. Changing the name would correct this problem. 13-JUN-2018: Note to closer—If after 7 days no additional !votes have been posted beyond the one already given, please feel free at your discretion to close this request as not moved, rather than re-list it. Thank you.  spintendo  02:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

June 13, 2018

  • (Discuss)Maryland Live! CasinoLive Casino & Hotel – Would you please update the name of this business? There has been a rebranding. The name has changed from Maryland Live Casino to Live Casino & Hotel. For verification: The old domain name now directs to The updated business information can be found here: Also, if needed, here is an article referencing the name change:, Thank you for your help. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pbferrigan (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marion Maréchal-Le PenMarion Maréchal – This is about Marion Marechal-Le Pen’s (MMLP) last name. Per French law and French naming customs, Ms Marechal-Le Pen can use either her father’s surname, ‘Marechal’, or a combo of said father’s name with her mother’s name, ‘Le Pen’, giving ‘Marechal-Le Pen’. She has been using that combo for about 8 years now. Very recently Marechal-Le Pen has decided to drop the maternal moiety (LePen) from her own usual name. In the reference linked here: Marechal-Le Pen’s likely motivations for the move are discussed. IMHO, those are not relevant when it comes to decide how MMLP’s page should be named. (However some political opponents to MMLP may resent the change, because of a perceived advantage MMLP might derive from it.) I suggest Wikipedia:Article_titles#Name_changes recommendations are followed. Mainstream media in English and in French have quietly followed suite, and it is unlikely that Marion Marechal would change again overnight. Bernarddb (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.JFG talk 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Canada–Mexico–United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bidUnited 2026 FIFA World Cup bid – As noted, there were concerns over the proportionality of games hosted that is implied by the title. Even though Canada is first alphabetically, the bid's plans are that only some of the games will be hosted there, and that the majority will actually be in the United States. Plus, "United 2026" is the actual name of the consortium, and the split-screen graphics during the final announcement referred to the final two bids as "United" and "Morocco", so there's official precedent too. I think it would better-reflect the common name. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)South American pilchardSardinops sagax – requesting move to the scientific name for this fish as there are multiple vernacular names depending upon where it occurs thus precluding one being chosen as COMMONNAME. The scientific name currently is a redirect to this page. Nick Thorne talk 04:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)!Kung languageǃKung language – The exclamation mark "!" is used in the place of the retroflex click symbol "ǃ." This follows the format used for the ǃKung people article. The language article was originally at the page using the correct mark, but was moved without discussion. HNdlROdU (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC). --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

June 12, 2018

  • (Discuss)Open-geomorphometry projectLandMapR – All indications are this is a proper name, like other open-software development projects, so it should be capitalized (though not after a hyphen, since what follows the hyphen is not itself a proper name, as in "post-Soviet"). Talk page should also be tagged with banners for appropriate wikiprojects (whatever those are in the morass of CS and sci projects). Article itself may need some review. This may be an orphan. Update: "open-geomorphometry project" turns out to be a description, with the proper and common name being LandMapR.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC); updated: 03:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Girls Like YouGirls like You – There are two possible meanings of the phrase "girls like you" - (1) "like" is a verb, and it is someone telling another person that girls like them; and (2) "like" is a preposition, and is the phrase is part of a larger sentence in which someone tells a girl what girls like her are prone to do. Looking at the lyrics, it's clear that this song is using meaning (2), and as such, per MOS:TITLECAPS, the "like" should have not be capitalised as it is a preposition with fewer than five letters.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Owain GlyndŵrOwain Glyndwr – Case has been made in thread above that the diacritic should not be used in English language spelling. This is a procedural listing, so correct process is followed to close above discussion - no personal comment on the case. Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saraqib chemical attackSaraqib chemical attack allegations (2013) – The main RS on which this article is based is from the UN Mission[3] which concludes "In the absence of any further information, the United Nations Mission was unable to draw any conclusions pertaining to this alleged incident". Since the source itself describes the incident as 'alleged', and since WP guidelines say 'articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations"', and given that it is usual in most countries that respect the rule of law to describe allegations as such, the title should make it clear that it is an alleged chemical attack, until the appropriate legal body confirms or rejects the allegations. This will also help to distinguish this attack from another notable Saraqib chemical attack that took place on 4th Feb 2018. On this occasion, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission confirmed the likely use of Chlorine. [4] so I suggest that a separate article be created to cover the more recent, confirmed attack, and that this should be called Saraqib chemical attack (February 2018). It is also to be hoped this approach will help to address concerns about neutrality Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Southern Cross NineNine Regional – On 1 July 2018, the Seven Network-affiliated television stations owned by Southern Cross Austereo (Tasmania, Spencer Gulf/Broken Hill, Central, Darwin) will lose their "Southern Cross" branding to adopt network branding as "Seven". When their main Ten Network-affiliated stations changed to Nine Network affiliation, the "Southern Cross Ten" article was renamed to "Southern Cross Nine" as at the time there was no better name for the article given that what little "Southern Cross" branding left was dropped in place of full network branding. With the Seven stations approaching this move, I think now is the time to discuss moving both articles to more appropriate names. For the Nine affiliate stations, I propose Nine Regional, similar to the official department of Nine News Regional for network-produced local news bulletins on the affiliate stations. I don't believe that there should be disambiguation in the title as Southern Cross is the primary Nine affiliate in Australia (the only others are single, unconnected stations in smaller markets). The naming also follows the convention for individual stations, which are colloquially referred to as "Nine [location name]" for both network-owned and affiliate stations (i.e. Nine Victoria), but applies it for the affiliate stations as a whole. For the Seven affiliate stations and following the above proposal, I propose Seven Regional (Southern Cross Austereo). In addition to the notes above, I believe that there should be disambiguation for the Seven affiliate stations as Southern Cross is not the only Seven affiliate, Prime Media Group (owners of Prime7 and GWN7) is the main Seven affiliate in QLD/NSW/VIC/WA. The disambiguation will aim to avoid confusion between Southern Cross' Seven Regional stations and Prime Media's Seven Regional stations. Note: the name change for the Seven affiliate station will only come into effect on 1 July 2018 when the branding officially changes. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attackRajneeshee food poisoning attacks – or Rajneesh movement Salmonella poisoning attacks – There aren't any articles about Rajneeshee food poisoning attacks in other years that we need to disambiguate, and having "bioterror" in the article title seems a bit extreme and tabloidish. As far as I know, the attacks were intended to temporarily incapacitate and confuse and suppress voting, not to kill (and no one was killed, although that was certainly a possibility). The perpetrators had considered and rejected the idea of using a more deadly pathogen. Also please note the suggested change from "attack" to "attacks". This involved multiple incidents that were not simultaneous (glasses of water given to two people on August 29, produce in grocery stores and doorknobs and urinal handles in the county courthouse at some point, and ten restaurant salad bars in September and October, and possibly some attempt to contaminate the public water supply, which the article mentions but doesn't give any detail about). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

June 11, 2018

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)RajneeshOsho – There were two closures already to this discussion, which you can see in the Archives. However, both the closures were desperate and by a non-admin. Osho is the most common name for Rajneesh. It should not be a problem to change the article name, example such as Indian poet, lyricist and film director Gulzar is the common name which most people associate with instead of his real name Sampooran Singh Kalra or NBA basketball player Magic Johnson for Earvin Johnson Jr or CM Punk for Phillip Jack Brooks or Nasty (musician) for Aviesk Baniya In this discussion in pinging the related, active and interest editors to express their views and discuss the outcome. @Vanamonde93:, @CASSIOPEIA:, @Gpkp:, @Idera1123:, @Saqib:,@Graeme Bartlett:, @DavidWestT:, @DanLanglois:, @Salvidrim!:, @Amakuru: Let's have a discussion to have a conclusion, which is not desperate. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kim's Convenience (TV series)Kim's Convenience – There's a rational explanation for why the articles are located where they are, in that the play already had an article before its television series adaptation even existed at all — but now that the television series exists and is quite successful in its own right, it is much more likely to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for most readers. The series already outstrips the play more than tenfold in pageview stats, at 8,102 pageviews for the TV series so far this year to just 650 for the play, even before you account for the fact that some portion of the play's pageviews were probably also people who really wanted the television series and had to two-step their way through the hatnote. So the television series should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the plain name with the play at a disambiguated title, rather than vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mass Rapid Transit Master Plan in Bangkok Metropolitan RegionBangkok subway – Rather than keeping the page dedicated to a masterplan, we could move it to one of the proposed titles and create a sort of "summarizing" page of all the Bangkok mass transit systems, as is already the case with the Tokyo subway. Currently "Bangkok subway" refers to "Bangkok MRT" but it is incorrect, as there are two other mass rail transport systems. Obviously, once moved, the page needs an arrangement to adapt it to the new title, but the current text would be relevant and will not be deleted. Wind of freedom (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)RT en françaisRT France – "RT en français" was a working title when discussing the future launch of a French-speaking branch of RT since 2015. The channel has now been launched and is known as "RT France", both officially and in third-party sources. The current RT France redirect to theologian Richard Thomas France should be overridden, and we should set up hatnotes consistent with a WP:TWODABS. "RT France" and "R.T. France" are permissible distinct titles per WP:SMALLDETAILS. — JFG talk 07:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CS Universitatea Bucovina SuceavaCS Universitatea Suceava – The club is presented as CSU Suceava, not CSU Bucovina Suceava, from EHF site to Romanian Handball Federation site I propose to be changed in CS Universitatea Suceava, abbreviated CSU Suceava, or even in, simply, CSU Suceava. "Bucovina" must be dropped, is an old alternative of the club's name, which included the word "Bucovina" with reference to the Bukovina region, where the city of Suceava is geographically located. Rhinen (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CSU Metal GalațiCSU Galați – The club is presented as CSU Galați, not CSU Metal Galați, from its official website to Romanian Volleyball Federation and website When the volleyball section was refounded, the "Metal" part of the name was dropped. Rhinen (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PlymouthPlymouth, Devon – A year and change after the last RM, I think we need to revisit this. The city in Devon, England is simply not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name "Plymouth". Even just looking at the top 10 ambiguous articles, Plymouth receives only 24.6% of the page views,[30] far short of the "more likely than all the other topics combined" benchmark. Plymouth Colony receives almost as many page views as the British city. Plymouth, Devon is also not the largest community of the name - it has 260,000 people in the area, while Plymouth County, Massachusetts - the area around Plymouth, Massachusetts - has 490,000. And finally, while Plymouth, Devon is unquestionably of great historical importance, it doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than all the other topics. Plymouth, Montserrat was (and officially still is) the capital of a whole island, and its destruction in a volcanic eruption was a highly notable and well known humanitarian crisis. Plymouth Colony/Plymouth, Massachusetts is also of immense significance in the history of the United States, the history of the British Empire, the histories of the former British Americas, and European colonization in general. Other topics like Plymouth (automobile) and the many other towns named "Plymouth" also factor in. Additionally, it's not practical to add all the other most prominent Plymouths to the hat note - the notability of the Massachusetts community alone is split across 2 if not 3 articles (Plymouth, Massachusetts Plymouth Colony, Plymouth County, Massachusetts). In short, the Devon city has neither more page views nor more historical significance than all the other topics combined, and so isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/c 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "IAMGOLD Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2017" (PDF). 21 February 2018. 
  2. ^
  3. ^ "United Nations Mission on Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic" (PDF).United Nations. 13 December 2013. Retrieved 6 February 2014",
  4. ^

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