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

  • IN Televizija → TV IN (move · discuss) – originally at TV In, moved to IN Televizija in error, now wish to move to TV IN (all caps) but page already exists (as redirect to IN Televizija Loopy30 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC). Note that the subject "IN Televizija" does exist as a totally separate broadcaster and may have its own wiki article in the future.

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 27 June 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 and in table format. 36 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

June 27, 2017

  • (Discuss)OvensOvens (disambiguation) – Clear WP:PLURALPT; move so that "Ovens" can redirect to Oven. "Ovens" appears in "Oven" more than 50 times, so clearly this is a term frequently used in the plural. Topics on the disambiguation page are comparatively minor - small towns and obscure people. bd2412 T 16:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ioana IvanIoana Gaspar – as per Official WTA site: and ITF site: Gabinho>:) 12:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gu Gyo-dongKu Kyo-dong – With the exception of Sports Reference which uses a unique/weird way of transliteration for Korean names all other sources uses Ku Kyo-dong for this guy, including FIE, 1992 Olympics official report (page 204), Asian Games Archive results and 2002 Asian Games official website. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

June 26, 2017

  • (Discuss)Symphony (Clean Bandit song)Symphony (song) – I would like to try this move again, as it has now been three months since the song's release. Yes, the main reason is because of unnecessary disambiguation. This is the only song called "Symphony" with an article, while the other two songs do not even have articles and are not even that notable. Plus, this song has achieved high chart positions in numerous countries, so at this point, it is appropriate to name the article "Symphony (song)". 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:8BB:55F:E0BA:1473 (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)American Broadcasting CompanyAmerican Broadcasting Companies – ABC's legal entity name is the American Broadcasting Companies, per their incorporation in the State of New York, see here and if you go here to the Delaware Secretary of State Corporation database and enter American Broadcasting as the search it will display the company as the American Broadcasting Companies, additionally the State of California Secretary of State database here (Note, you need to enter the name manual they don't allow links to files) shows the company incorporated as the American Broadcasting Companies with addresses in New York at 77 West 66th Street (ABC headquarters) and 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA (Disney's headquarters). Also the various trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, here, here, here and here. Given the amount evidence that I have provided I'd feel a move is warranted. YborCityJohn (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Estadio La PeinetaEstadio Wanda Metropolitano – Despite being the same stadium but expanded, now it is not denominated more as Estadio La Peineta. The metro station also changed its name to "Estadio Metropolitano", but following other stadiums, the article can have the name of the sponsor. Asturkian (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lists of Statutes of New ZealandLists of statutes of New Zealand – Statutes in this context isn't a proper noun and should thus not be capitalised. Yes, I acknowledge that when lawyers write about acts, statutes, bills, ordinances, or the like, they will almost always capitalise that word. The New Zealand law style guide, however, says that we aren't dealing with proper nouns. If I had heaps of spare time, I would include all the list articles on this page in a multi-move proposal, but whatever consensus we come to here shall simply apply to the sub-articles, too (as per the KIS principle). Schwede66 09:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Suzuki Baleno (2015)Suzuki Baleno – Abitoby moved this page to Suzuki Baleno and Baleno RS without any discussion. Personally, I dont see this title is needed as sport variant isn't needed to listed on title. I moved them to Suzuki Baleno (2015), but I guess year isn't necessary either. So I request this should move back to Suzuki Baleno. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 06:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 25, 2017

  • (Discuss)Apehominoid – The word "ape" is ambiguous, used in many different ways (Barbary ape). We should have this article at the clearer word "hominoid". Fish567 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sigla F.C.Team Socceroo F.C. – Reopening the move request. Perhaps I was not clear with my arguments for the move. Summarizing my arguments: *Sigla FC as Team Socceroo F.C. was notable as a participant in the country's de facto national league. *Sigla FC is not notable under its current incarnation. They only conduct football clinics and participate in open sunday league type of youth tournaments. I was the one who moved it to Sigla F.C. under the presumption they will remain in the national league under the new name but they did drop out from the league. To make an analogy - a hypothetical one and a highly improbable one.  :If Bayern Munich or FC Barcelona announced that they will be competing under a drastically different new name the next season and later decided to withdrew from the league and decided to solely compete in minor community-based weekend football leagues. Would we change the article names of the club? Or create new articles of the clubs' new incarnation? The claim of notability of the club, is its one of the participants of the now defunct United Football League. No one is going to talk about "Sigla FC competed in the UFL" without some disclaimer like "Sigla F.C. formerly/then known as Team Soccerooo". The article's content could be tweaked into this if moved back to Team Socceroo F.C. acknowledging the name change while putting more weight to its incarnation as Team Socceroo FC.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

June 24, 2017

  • (Discuss)Egge (disambiguation)Egge – Egge already redirects here and there is no obvious primary topic, so Egge should become the dab page. I would have done this already but it needs help from an admin. Bermicourt (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23, 2017

  • (Discuss)Shake It OffShake It Off (Taylor Swift song) – While I realize this undoes last year's move request, Taylor Swift's song is not the primary topic, and it only seems that her song is the primary topic because of WP:RECENTISM. Mariah Carey's song came out in 2005, and it still proved to be a hit. The reason it seems that Swift's song is more successful is mainly because of the digital age; downloads were just getting big when Mariah's song was released and they were big when Swift's song came out. This is a move request that has been denied once and accepted the second time, but I feel this is sufficient reasoning to move things back to where they were. (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GCE VillaralboVillaralbo CF – The club was named during several years as "GCE Villaralbo" for sponsorship reasons. GCE now does not support this team and it became again to be Villaralbo CF. Asturkian (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Land SecuritiesLandsec – Land Securities has recently rebranded to Landsec Mattbur (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Carlos Alberto PeñaCarlos Peña (Mexican footballer) – Page on En wiki, player moved to Scotland where he is referred to by media, club and league as simply Carlos Peña. Therefore suggest the move to (Mexican footballer) with a similar move regarding Carlos Pena the Spanish player to (Spanish footballer) as both Carlos Peña's will have equal prominence on English Wikipedia Johnelwaq (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Singapore Workforce Development AgencyWorkforce Singapore - WSG – The Singapore Workforce Development Agency has been renamed to Workforce Singapore since January 2016. Please see link to the press release on the Ministry of Manpower's website. WSG has also launch their new name on their website & Facebook page. , Shortblurb (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22, 2017

June 21, 2017

  • (Discuss)Emily Owen, Labour candidate for AberconwyEmily Owen – Potentially notable person. Current mainspace article is a redirect to a similar (but not closely similar) named TV series. The current article name is overlong and unwieldy and the subject has a reasonable claim to use her name as an article title  Velella  Velella Talk   18:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anti-HinduismHinduphobia – The word 'Hinduphobia' is academically more sound and accurate. Moreover, it encompasses everything the article stands for. Coconut1002 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.Guanaco 06:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John James Flynt Jr.John FlyntWP:COMMONNAME, because Flynt's full name only returns around 2,000 google results, in contrast to "John Flynt Jr." returning 44,000+ and "John J. Flynt Jr." returning 2,500+. Also, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - because there are no other notable people by this name. A more "common" name is difficult for me to decide, because both Georgia's Virtual Library [7] and the Associated Press [8] use "John 'Jack' Flynt". The US Congress website [9] uses "John J. Flynt Jr." as does the Atlanta Journal-Constitution obituary [10]. Yet per PRIMARYTOPIC the "Jr." seems unnecessary. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ÉénEén – I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it seems like Eén is correct branding while Één is used for stylish purposes. Also see MOS:TM John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 03:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dark liquidityDark pool – The article is mostly about dark pools themselves and this is the more common name. The liquidity is covered in the article and is obviously a key part of dark pools. There has been some previous changes but I feel the most appropriate name for this article now is dark pool after its development. There had been a previous changes and even a merge from Dark pools of liquidity which is also a common name for this concept. I feel that given the development of the article and a lot more references to this from its use in high frequency trading, it now makes sense to change it to Dark pool again. This will require an administrator as dark pool, and dark pool liquidity have been used in the past and are now redirects. Sargdub (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Sargdub (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20, 2017

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)GrahamiaGrahamia (wasp) – There is also a plant genus named Grahamia which I am currently working on so it seems appropriate for there to be a disambiguation page for Grahamia to direct readers to either the wasp genus or the plant genus. Quetzal1964 05:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HamiticHamites – Hamitic is an adjective, so should not be the title of an article.
    Other solutions (e.g. Hamitic race) are possible, but Hamites would be best as it would follow the community consensus for groups of people agreed two years ago at Talk:Belizeans, as well as be consistent with the Japhetites article.
    Hamites requires disambiguation from the Hamites genus, but a quick google search shows that this article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. AjaxSmack  01:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vinyl (disambiguation)Vinyl – I think this page should be moved to the page Vinyl because the pages that link to vinyl, very often don't mean to link to the vinyl functional group. Also because it would bring people searching for the word "vinyl" to a page that shows the different things vinyl can refer to. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC) edited by OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jay ZJay-Z – Confirmed by a Roc Nation rep that he has gone back to the hyphenated "Jay-Z" from "Jay Z".[1] Jennica / talk 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)RoxelanaHurrem Sultan – Most modern scholarly sources seem to prefer Hurrem over Roxelana. Colin Imber says "Hurrem, the concubine whom European sources remember as Roxelana" - he continues to refer to her as Hurrem. We should follow the sources and do the same. Seraphim System (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Logo TVLogo (TV channel) – It has been about a year and a half since the last move request, and at this point, it seems as if the channel is just known as "Logo" without "TV" next to it (as noticed in this press release: [16]. (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kevin Cooper (prisoner)Kevin Cooper – The title "Kevin Cooper (murderer)" implies that he is guilty. In fact there is a well-established claim that he is factually innocent and the term (murderer) or even (inmate) is prejudicial and violates Neutral Point of View. Please consider changing the title of the article back to "Kevin Cooper" without any brackets, or at least don't use (Murderer). (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TaxilaAncient Taxila"Ancient Taxila" refers to the ancient city of Takshashila which is referenced on this article, while "Taxila" can ALSO mean the modern city. Since the users here argue that this page is referring to the ANCIENT city of Taxila, I think the Idea of clarifying this page's topic by renaming it Ancient Taxila is a good idea in order to avoid confusion. The current page should be renamed Ancient Taxila, while the modern city of Taxila's page should be entitled Taxila (modern) - a page I've already created in order to help clear confusion. (Please also note that the modern city is refered to only by the name Taxila as well. That is, it is not called anything like "New Taxila," "Modern Taxila," or "Taxila City," etc etc. It is just Taxila.) Another good alternative would be to refer to this page as Taxila (ancient) to clarify that this is a page about the ancient city of Taxila. But both titles should be unambiguous. Allowing "Taxila" to refer only to the ancient ruined city from 2000 years ago completely neglects the sizeable present day city of the same name. Given the fact that naming conventions can cause heated debates, it would be best if third-party and unbiased users could weigh in - that is, those of you who are not from South Asia might offer a better perspective, rather than a group of Pakistani editors outnumbering Indians, or vice versa. Willard84 (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ion channel familyCation channel superfamily – The current title, "Ion channel family", is insufficiently precise (in that there are many distinct ion channel families, not just one). First of all, a grouping as large as this one is typically referred to as a "superfamily", containing multiple families within it. See, for example, [20], which defines a ligand-gated ion channel superfamily, and [21], about a voltage-gated ion channel superfamily. This page is largely about the latter, but also includes a few sections about ligand-gated channels. Thus, "superfamily" is the more accurate term here, as reflected also in the lead sentence. Second, as the lead sentence also specifies, the page name should be restricted to cation, not anion, channels. The superfamilies described in both of the above sources also include anion channels (such as chloride channels), which are excluded from this page. (Obviously, there are multiple sourced ways to define these superfamilies, but I am leaving any consideration of a different definition to a later discussion.) By and large, the source material does not seem to require adding the implicit "transmembrane" to the name: compare [22] and [23], where the phrase "cation channel superfamily" is widely used in sources. -- Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Israel and the apartheid analogyClaims of Israeli apartheid – I was going to wait until the earlier move request discussion was closed but as it's been more than a week and it seems obvious that it will be closed as inconclusive I'm going to proceed now. "Claims of Israeli apartheid" seems to be a title everyone can agree with, as indicated by the ""Allegations" discussion" above. It's neutral, removes the inaccurate term "analogy", and is (relatively) succinct. I still think "Israel apartheid claims" or "Israeli apartheid claims would be preferable but am willing to support "Claims of Israeli apartheid" as a compromise. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Malformed requests


  1. ^ "JAY-Z’s Name: The Hyphen Is Back, And Now It’s in All Caps | Pitchfork". 

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