Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

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

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

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

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

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason = reason for move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title;
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 23 March 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

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.

March 23, 2017

  • (Discuss)The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky Second ChapterThe Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky SC – SC stands for "Second Chapter" and may be a more clear title, but the game is presently referred to in all official contexts as "SC". This includes, but is not limited to: XSEED's websites, the store pages from which the game is sold, and the game's actual logo. Searching for "...SC" also provides more results than "...Second Chapter", and anecdotally the fanbase usually refers to it as "...SC". The Japanese name also uses "...SC". The only thing going for "...Second Chapter" is clarity, but might that be a valid enough reason? 76.164.126.70 (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Central Alaskan Yup'ik peopleYup'ik people – Central Alaskan Yup'ik is unfamiliar to any person who speaks English, except maybe for a few academics. The reason behind this titling is perhaps to distinguish between Yupik people (in general) and Yup'ik people specifically. Instead of using the highly pedantic name Central Alaskan Yup'ik, just change the name to Yup'ik people and add at the top "Not to be confused with:" Yupik people, referring to multiple Yupik-speaking peoples Naulagmi (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zanzithophone → ? – "Zanzithophone" is not a commonly used term for this musical instrument, and is only mentioned in one work of fiction. The term appears to have been invented by a 1990s band for no obvious reason. The correct name (used by the instrument's manufacturer and the majority of its owners and players) is "Casio DH-100 Digital Horn". Simon (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Svetlana LobodaLoboda (singer) – Since 2010 Svetlana Loboda uses her last name Loboda (stylized as LOBODA) for her music career and is recognized by this name on her music releases and social media. Because "Loboda" is used for other people with this surname, my proposal is "Loboda (singer)" as the best way people might search for her article on Wikipedia. Lucas RdS (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Short Message ServiceSMS – per WP:COMMONNAME. This was suggested in the previous just-closed RM with no objection. There was a prior RM in 2009 that moved the article to "SMS", and I'm not sure how it got moved back to where it is. As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Clare Fischer & Salsa Picante Present "2 + 2"Clare Fischer & Salsa Picante Present 2+2 – or perhaps just 2+2 (album). The album cover doesn't show the quote marks, and the L.A. Times obituary doesn't include them either. The current article title also includes spaces to the right and left of the "+", which I suspect are also not really part of the proper title and are just there to try to make the title visually attractive. Perhaps the "Clare Fischer & Salsa Picante Present" is just a prefix lead-in to the actual title, which is just 2+2 – the name of the quartet. The BBC obituary and another article just call it 2+2 without the prefix. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22, 2017

  • (Discuss)Panic! at the DiscoPanic at the Disco – Per MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM, to remove a purely decorative exclamation point that is not included consistently in practice (e.g., as with "macys" and "skate."). Wikipedia guidelines discourage this sort of decorative punctuation. Per this article, the exclamation point isn't even usually used by the band members themselves and was officially dropped from the name at some point in time. The frontman said he never used it and the guitarist also said it was a bit annoying. A previous discussion on the article talk page in 2013 favored removal of the exclamation point, but the attempt to move the article failed due to inadequate account privilege. (See the discussion section entitled "The !exclamation!".) The article has been moved back and forth before (and an RM in 2009 decided to add the exclamation mark). Since someone suggested nominating the article for GA evaluation, it seems desirable to settle this properly. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Oldham RoughyedsOldham R.L.F.C. – Following the discussion at Talk:Toronto Wolfpack regarding ignoring sources we know are factually wrong, I believe it's time to take another look at renaming this article. At the Wolfpack talk page, it was decided that although several sources claim that the club is the first trans-Atlantic professional sports club, we would not include this line in the article due to the fact it is clearly wrong as several other examples of trans-Atlantic pro sports teams can be provided. This issue here for Oldham is, some sources still refer to the club as Oldham Roughyeds as if it's the clubs official name, yet we *know* from several other sources, including the club itself, that the name of the club is Oldham R.L.F.C., with Roughyeds being the clubs official nickname. To put this into context, it's like having the Hull City A.F.C. article at Hull City Tigers or back in RL terms, having the Halifax R.L.F.C. article at Halifax Blues. Some sources: Official Oldham RLFC Twitter displaying the clubs name while using the nickname as the handle, Official club website again using the nickname as a handle, while clearly displaying the offical club name at the top of the page and Love Rugby League, widely used by Wikipedia as a reliable source for RL articles, using the clubs proper name – Just a quick final note, the reason I'm proposing the "R.L.F.C." suffix instead of "RLFC" is to conform to the standard on Wikipedia as per Hunslet R.L.F.C., St Helens R.F.C. and Hull F.C. etc.. Skemcraig (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chen yihanChen Yidan – someone had previously created Chen Yidan, but made mistakes with copyright violations and tonality of the article. Consequently, this got deleted and blocked from recreation. The original author made a somewhat better attempt under a wrong name Chen yihan which I then tried to improve further with references and removal of controversial language. The article still needs some work, but I definitely think the person is noteworthy as key figure of one of China's biggest internet companies and emerging major philanthropist. See references that have been added. Thx. Jake Brockman (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saint George's CrossSt. George's Cross – * I may have made a mistake with the Saint George's Cross move, St. (or St) looks to be the common n-gram name]. The way I looked at it was that it was Saint George's cross, referring to the individual who is the namesake of the cross, and missed that it seems to be a proper name. I was going with MOS:SAINTS on this and missing that it was a proper name. My apologies. Then again, would MOS:SAINTS apply, and negate the common name policy, thus rendering the page name Saint George's cross, lower-case 'c'? Maybe, but probably not. (EDIT a few minutes later: Well, maybe. Lower-case "c" is a red-link but maybe it's accurate] Randy Kryn 00:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21, 2017

  • (Discuss)Sex trade in GhanaProstitution in Ghana – I really intended this article Sex trade in Ghana to be about prostitution and thought sex trade is a good a descriptor and then realized that Prostitution in Ghana would be a more appropriate title. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Batman (1989 film series)Batman film series (1989) – This article is about the series of Batman films begun with 1989’s Batman. To the best of my knowledge, there is no collective title for this series. The current name of the article implies that the four films are collectively called simply “Batman,” which seems misleading if this is not the case. The proposed title is descriptive, with the parenthetical year disambiguating it from the Dark Knight movies and earlier serials (which are also not collectively named “Batman”). Put simply, the subject of this article is not itself called “Batman”; it’s a film series featuring that character. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Outline of Bible-related topicsOutline about the Bible – I suggested a name at the recent AfD, which was adopted, but I hadn't put much thought into it when I made the suggestion, and I thought of potentially much better solution right afterwards. I figured those in the discussion would appreciate being informed of it, and pinged them. If the new article title can improve the encyclopedia, it's worth considering. It is less wordy, removes the redundant "topics" (outlines by definition are lists of topics), presents the Bible as the root subject rather than marginalizing it into the adjective "Bible-related", and drops the superfluous punctuation (hyphen). The Transhumanist 12:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 02:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20, 2017

  • (Discuss)Jeffrey R. ImmeltJeff ImmeltWP:COMMONNAME. Immelt is more commonly referred as "Jeff", because a Google search for "Jeff Immelt" returns nearly 370k results. "Jeffrey R. Immelt" only 202k, and "Jeffrey Immelt" 172k. Furthermore, adding site:www.wsj.com/articles to the above search queries, to restrict searches to The Wall Street Journal articles, finds nearly 850 results for "Jeff Immelt", ~500 for "Jeffrey Immelt", and ~100 for "Jeffrey R. Immelt". And it's dubious why "First M. Last" is the article title in the first place, since this name does not require disambiguation. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islandsUS nuclear weapons in Japan – US nuclear weapons were not only based in the Japanese islands but also in several mainland Japan locations as well as several other locations in Asia. A reliable source has the following text: "Misawa and Itazuki airbases (and possibly at Atsugi, Iwakuni, Johnson, and Komaki airbases as well), and nuclear-armed U.S. Navy ships stationed in Sasebo and Yokosuka".[1]
  1. ^ How much did Japan know? by Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin, and William Burr, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists January/February 2000 Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 11-13, 78-79

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Knowledge GraphKnowledge Graph (Google implementation) – This article is only about the Google implementation of knowledge graphs, that's why it should be renamed. Wikipedia is there to eduacate people, so an article with the title "Knowledge Graph" should be about this general term and not about a specific implementation of it. Furthermore there are tonnes of prior research using the therm "knowledge graph" in academia. ERusz (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Flying lizardFlying Lizard – All uncapitalized meanings of the term on this page are merely variations of lizards that are able to fly (or, technically, glide); the only truly ambiguous meanings are capitalized. Move this page to the capitalized tile and redirect the uncapitalized form to Draco (genus), which encompasses all actual flying lizards. bd2412 T 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kabushima ShrineKabushima – move orphan stub into main article; the island is the National Natural Monument, not the shrine; a separate article on the shrine can be recreated if/when more material and secondary sources are obtained MChew (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19, 2017

  • (Discuss)St. John's Church, KadammanittaKadammanittapally – Organization is known as kadammanittapally as you see over the internet. There are multiple churches in the present name in same locality, therefore the current name is confusing. Please rename to Kadammanittapally or St. John's Orthodox Church, Kadammanitta. If you move over google maps in the locality, you could find churches with same name. Robincsamuel (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Unconditional (Harrison Craig song)Unconditional (Ne-Yo song) – Article uses the name of the cover artist rather than the original artist. Doesn't matter who made it famous, but who the original performer was for article title, give credit where due. The article <<Unconditional (Harrison Craig song)>> should be the redirect page, or deleted Mburrell (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

March 18, 2017

  • (Discuss)Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft BerlinHTW Berlin – per WP:USEENGLISH, the majority of news sources (even the German ones) use HTW Berlin *https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22HTW+Berlin%22&pws=1&tbm=nws&* 2,660 results *https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22HTW+Berlin%22&pws=1&* 371,000 results for HTW Berlin *https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Hochschule+f%C3%BCr+Technik+und+Wirtschaft+Berlin%22&* 141,000 results for Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Azteca (TV network)Azteca América – The network has started going by Azteca América again. The site us.azteca.com redirects to aztecaamerica.com which features an "Azteca América" logo. News articles and press releases use the full name (examples: [4], [5]). Additionally the current location of "Azteca (TV network)" generates confusion with sister networks named Azteca 7 and Azteca Trece in Mexico, plus Azteca Guatemala and Azteca Honduras. Raymie (tc) 06:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 17, 2017

March 16, 2017

  • (Discuss)Azteca (multimedia conglomerate)TV Azteca – After some years of calling itself just Azteca, the company actually restored TV to its name and changed out signage at its studios and offices. (For instance: 2014 vs. 2016; 2015 vs. 2016) I have taken control of this RM as it was done by an IP editor who is evading blocks, but it actually is not a bad idea. Raymie (tc) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Right to waterHuman right to water and sanitation – I think other authors have tried here to discuss the whole notion of a "right to water", but in my opinion the UN declaration should be front-and-centre of the article, which therefore should include prominently the right to sanitation. Therefore I believe the page should actually be "Human Right to Water and Sanitation." - Has been raised on the talk page already some months ago and repeated recently. The proposal was made long ago and repeated again recently, and there were no objections. EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss)Sámuel MikovinySamuel Mikoviny – The form "Sámuel" is only Hungarian transcription of his name, like Mikovíni is Slovak transcription. Mikoviny personally used the form without accents - Samuel Mikoviny. This form is language neutral and should be preffered, since numerous sources contain information about another nationality. Thus, the rationale behind the previous debate is wrong, the argument that he was "a Hungarian" and Sámuel was his native name is more than questinable and the conclusion based on this argument is problematic. Ditinili (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kalki BhagavanSri Bhagavan – The present title of the article is not the common name used to address the subject The name Kalki was a title given earlier by subject's students and can confuse readers with Kalki from Hindu mythology. As seen from the article space, "Sri Bhagavan" is the name of the subject. Request to have the name changed. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Backlog

Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss)Centre de musique romantique françaisePalazzetto Bru Zane - Centre de musique romantique française – The name of the institution and how it is most commonly referred to in the press is Palazzetto Bru Zane, while Centre de musique romantique française explains its function and is the official subtitle (see homepage and logo). The page was already moved yesterday, but this move was reverted without giving a reason or reference. Users that disagree on this point are welcome to contribute to the talk page where I have already started a section on this topic. Thank you. CharlesVilliers (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Caprica (TV series)Caprica – The undisambiguated "Caprica" is currently a disambiguation page. Removing non-existent articles IAW WP:DABRL however would leave two entrants: Caprica (TV series) and Caprica Six. I'm not terribly familiar with Battlestar Galactica, so I don't know the likelihood of people searching "Caprica" for "Caprica Six", though if it's statistically significant, a hatnote could be easily applied. Of all articles, I really only see one that should be sitting in the "Caprica" target, and a devastated & practically useless disambiguation page isn't it. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sir George YoungGeorge Young, Baron Young of Cookham – The previous RM debate was closed as moving to Sir George Young as a compromise. However, only one contributor actually backed this. Of the other contributors, one wanted it to remain at George Young (politician), two wanted it moved to the proposed title of George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, one supported a move to George Young, Baron Young of Cookham or Sir George Young, 6th Baronet, and one was happy with George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, Sir George Young, 6th Baronet or George Young (politician). I have no idea why, therefore, it was moved to its current title, which we usually avoid. Yes, he is most commonly known as Sir George Young; however, many knights and baronets (probably the majority) are commonly known as "Sir Foo Foo". Yet almost none of our articles are titled this way. WP:NCPEER is perfectly clear on what the article title should be. Given we do need to disambiguate his name, it should be at either his peerage title or his baronetage title. There is no problem with this whatsoever and the clear majority of contributors to the previous discussion actually supported the former as the higher title. The close should have been challenged at the time as not resembling the actual outcome of the discussion in any way and essentially a "supervote" on the part of the closer which was only supported by the opinion of a single contributor to the discussion. I see no reason whatsoever to go against our longstanding accepted guidelines for this single solitary individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of ChinaAnnexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China – Recently, there are many one-time registration account to make strange editing, such as the use of POV as a reason to delete the reference material, or use the unusual Chinese vocabulary to call Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China. So far, the most extreme situation is the use of Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China's direct translation to replace the common Chinese vocabulary. Rayming123 edit page of the day the page browsing traffic surge(3/6 views 942,3/7 views 619,AVG views 296), may be organized intentionally involved.(PS:This page 3/6 views 1,3/7 views 4,AVG views 1. ) Direct translation part, Aknanaka's (中國合併西藏) is one of the classic representatives. Based on the above, altering the name of Incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China may improve the translation of Chinese vocabulary caused by direct translation, but it can not be changed into peaceful liberation of Tibet, after all, the fact of war. Even if the POV as a reason to oppose called Invasions, it is impossible to make the name of peace is justified.--61.224.0.11 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mărăști-class destroyerAquila-class cruiser – It is true they were ordered as destroyers, but they were completed as scout cruisers and already commissioned by the Italian Navy. I am aware there are several other Italian destroyers who were rated as scout crisers, but the Aquilas had the guns to back it up: 6-inch cruiser-typical guns, plus the size for their time. It is also true they were later modified to be destroyers, re-armed with 120 mm guns, but they started service as Italian cruisers, and thus I think this should be the article name. 86.120.125.123 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Intake (disambiguation)IntakeIntake is a word with a broad range of meanings, and I don't think that the current article at intake (opening on a car or aircraft body) satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Actually, google:Intake produces a mixed bag of links, and I don't think there is primary topic for "intake", thus it should be a disambiguation page. No such user (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    Now, I don't feel strongly about the second part of the move, i.e. proposed target for the current article, but "air intake" (while still somewhat ambiguous itself) already redirects there, and we probably lack a better name for this rather broad concept. It is at least consistent with spinoff articles such as Cold air intake or Ram-air intake. No such user (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Singaporean integration referendum, 1962Singapore national referendum, 1962 – The WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISEname of this referendum is "Singapore National Referendum" (which is in turn derived from the Singapore National Referendum Bill (See the link for a background). *A search in Google Scholar shows 87 results for(Singapore national referendum), 1 result for (Singaporean national referendum) and 0 results for (Singaporean integration referendum) *The term "integration" has not been used in any reliable sources. In fact a Google search of "Singaporean integration referendum" shows only Wikipedia mirrors or derived sources *Using "Singaporean" here instead of "Singapore" is against the common usage (and also incorrect because Singaporean is not exactly a demonym for people of Singapore, is usually a noun used for citizenship). The adjective for Singapore is "Singapore". Almost every single source mentioning the referendum calls it "Singapore national referendum". The One source which uses Singaporean actually does so because of the former title of this Wikipedia article]. It should be noted that long back this article was originally at Singapore national referendum, 1962, so I am simply trying to move it back to the original title. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Template:Sunst:relisting
  • (Discuss)Augment (linguistics)Augment (Indo-European) – There is also an augment in the Bantu languages, which is completely unrelated other than the name (which was perhaps inspired by the IE augment). The two phenomena should have separate articles, as merely being called "augment" is not enough reason to discuss them all on the same page, as is currently done. CodeCat (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)FIA Formula 2 Championship – Current FIA Formula 2 Championship is a primary meaning, we can't use year for the disambiguation purpose as the article includes earlier years (2005-2016), when the series was known as GP2 Series. Or we should separate articles, but it has less sense as it's exactly the same series under the different moniker. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kate McCarthy (footballer)Kate McCarthy – Footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The character's link has no information apart from the actor and year the character appeared, and the director has even less — that she directed one show which an actress appeared in. A Google search for 'Kate McCarthy Emmerdale' returns nothing related apart from WP and clones, as does one for 'Kate McCarthy director'. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Blood bikeBlood Bikes – A "blood bike" is a type of vehicle (per fire engine). This article is not about the type of vehicle, it is about the groups that operate the vehicles and provide the service, the most commonly used name for which is Blood Bikes. Blood Bikes is a proper name, hence the caps. No group operates just a single bike. Most Blood Bikes groups incorporate "Blood Bikes" into their names: * bloodbikes.org.uk - Nationwide Association of Blood Bikes * Blood Bikes Cumbria * Blood Bikes East * Blood Bikes Manchester * Blood Bikes Scotland * Blood Bikes Wales * Cornwall Blood Bikes * Derbyshire Blood Bikes * Dumfries & Galloway Blood Bikes * Leicestershire and Rutland Blood Bikes * Lincolnshire Emergency Blood Bikes Service * North West Blood Bikes Lancashire & Lakes * Northumbria Blood Bikes * Nottinghamshire Blood Bikes * Shropshire & Staffordshire Blood Bikes * Warwickshire and Solihull Blood Bikes * Whiteknights Yorkshire Blood Bikes The term Blood Bikes is also used by many other groups, eg: * Devon Freewheelers * Freewheelers Emergency Voluntary Service * SERV https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22blood+bikes%22+-%22blood+bike%22 ~56,800 hits https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22blood+bike%22+-%22blood+bikes%22 ~28,100 hits   82.132.224.133 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KhulaKhul'' Khul (or more precisely Khulʿ, but this distinction is too technical for an article name) is the standard English spelling which corresponds to the Arabic term, as can be seen in standard references such as Brill Encyclopedia of Islam [7] and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World [8] (quote: "This form of divorce, called khulʿ...") and Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia by Routledge [9]. Khula appears to be a regional variant used mostly in South Asia. Eperoton (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Acne vulgarisAcne – After the recently failed acne vulgaris FAC (see: [10]), I wanted to make sure my watchlist remained on fire (cf: [11]). I would like to reverse this redirect such that acne vulgaris redirects TO acne. I think this change is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, and if the change does occur then I would merge and redirect into the acne article many of the stubs that cover the various obscure subtypes of acne (see: [12]). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.laget.se/aram
Gryf (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nasrani (disambiguation)Nasrani – Up until the ISIL painting of Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over the Christian gateposts of Mosul in 2014 it's possible that the South Indian use of "Nazarene" to redirect to Kerala's Saint Thomas Christian castes really was the main use in English sources. But that isn't the case since 2014, as Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)American Pekin DuckAmerican Pekin – Consistent or inconsistent is not the main matter. What matters is what the consensus said at another discussion. Somehow, the name was reverted back to the present title, i.e. one with "Duck". If the consensus says scrap out "Duck", let's do that then. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sarasadat KhademalshariehSara Khadem – Since there is some dispute about this, we should get it settled by a formal move request. FIDE (the international chess federation) does use her full name, but a number of sources, including Al-Jazeera and the Guardian, call her Sara Khadem. See [13]. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hand on the TorchHand On the Torch – I believe this title is not about an actual hand on an actual torch, but rather means "pass the torch". So "hand on" is a phrasal verb here, and "on" is not used as a preposition, and must thus be capitalized according to MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Garage music (US garage)Garage house – Per the following: * WP:NATURALDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. * WP:PARENDIS: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Example: The word "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names * According to the author Howard Richler, the style of music played by Larry Levan was first called "garage", and later, "garage house". AllMusic says the genre is "Named for what is arguably the birthplace of house music — the Paradise Garage in New York ". Thus, "garage house" can easily be considered a "sufficiently common alternative name".  : Another reason to move: Garage rock, also known as "garage", was distinctly American. So "US garage" is not much of a disambiguation.Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cambrian LineCambrian line – Not a proper name; previous move that was thought to be uncontroversial was reverted by the procedural RM above, so let's discuss whether sources support treatment of this as a proper name or not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ashrama (stage)Ashrama – We need to revisit this, as the status quo isn't workable: The base name Ashrama redirects to this article, and has for 10 years. Base names should never redirect to a disambiguated name; the disambiguation is pointless, as anyone who clicks the base name ends up here anyway. Moreover, while there's a hat note to Ashram (disambiguation) (minus the second "a"), none of the other topics are commonly known in English as "Ashrama". Any confusion can be better sorted out with hat notes than wonky current system. Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"

References

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


See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=771688120"
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