Page semi-protected

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 as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate 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

Autoconfirmed editors 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

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article and you want your draft article published, please submit it for review at Articles for Creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.

  • 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.

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 17 October 2018" and sign the post for you.

Use the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

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 17 October 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 21:59, 17 October 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 17 October 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 21:59, 17 October 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 17 October 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 21:59, 17 October 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 17 October 2018

– why Example (talk) 21:59, 17 October 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 17 October 2018

– why Example (talk) 21:59, 17 October 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.[a]
  • 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. 45 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

October 17, 2018

  • (Discuss)Simmons CollegeSimmons University – As of September 1, 2018, Simmons College is now known as Simmons University. The page content and logo has been updated, but the page title and URL should also be updated to reflect this new name. A page move was attempted but was not successful Mikecorreia (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reading (process)Reading – To say that I am astonished to find this article at this name is an understatement. As naturally expected this article was created at "Reading" in 2003 even though Reading, Berkshire was created a year earlier. It was only moved in 2008 after this one-man so-called "discussion". Article policy makes it clear on this:

    "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

    It's absolutely beyond doubt, that reading, yes literal reading has greater cultural significance and perpetual notability than any other term in the now weird disambiguation page. The foremost and unambiguous usage of "reading" everywhere in the world, in the past century, the present and future is reading first, then anything else behind. It's the default world over and needs no qualifying, but anything else do need one before it could be understood. In fact, whatever is named "reading", it must have gotten that inspiration from actual "reading". I perused the above two discussions in 2013 and 2015 and found the arguments forwarded not only lacking in policy-based reasons but hollow and essentially appeal to page views and amassed together they gave the discussion usual fate of no consensus, which should have reverted to the actual first used title, but wasn't done. It is noteworthy that, if we follow appeal to pageview Apple Inc. could have been moved to Apple as the former got 4x the number of views for the latter consistently for several years, but it wasn't so because respect for enduring significance, AT policy and common sense prevailed. I hope the community will rectify this anomaly, and the sooner the better for us. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)War crimes of the WehrmachtWehrmacht criminality – Currently, scholars seem to be focusing more on the "criminality" of Nazi organizations rather than the "war crimes" committed by them. This article seems to be more broad then just war crimes, and changing the title to criminality makes it clear that the article is intended to cover not just massacres committed near the front lines, but complicity in the Holocaust, systematic rape, looting, exploitation of forced labor, crimes against humanity, genocide, etc., not all of which fit under the rubric of war crimes per se. Catrìona (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Catrìona (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Malibu Nights (album)Malibu Nights – The article "Malibu Nights" as it is is a redirect to Tenacious D (album). I am not requesting this move because I created this article, and I'm not requesting this out of WP:RECENTISM. There may be other things that share this title out there. But as it stands, Malibu Nights is a redirect for an album track (not a single) that is essentially one section of a larger song ("City Hall/I Believe/Malibu Nights"), so this album is clearly the more notable of the two to use the name "Malibu Nights". At the least, Malibu Nights should be turned into a disambiguation page for other topics, but I'd like to know what others think. Ss112 11:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16, 2018

  • (Discuss)Syracuse ChiefsSyracuse Mets – Constructively continuing the same franchise, so no need to split the article. Note that there was no split of the article when the club played in the Eastern League, nor is there a separate article for the SkyChiefs. Accordingly, the most appropriate name for the article is the current club name. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reiner Ferreira Correa GomesReiner Ferreira – The long form of his name is unnecessary as we have no one else to disambiguate from. Most sources seem to primarily refer to him by the shorter name, including official sources like Indy Eleven and NASL (oddly, USL shortens it to just "Reiner") as well as third-party sources like Transfermarkt and Soccerway. Admittedly, Google Knowledge Graph uses the longer form, but I think they might just be copying Wikipedia. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NCAA March Madness (CBS/Turner)NCAA March Madness (TV program) – Disambiguating by "TV network" has be deprecated under WP:NCTV (and disambiguating by two TV networks at the same time has never been done!), and there is absolutely no reason for this to be disambiguated that way, anyway. This is article covers just the TV broadcast of the tournament, so NCAA March Madness (TV program) is entirely sufficient in article naming terms. Further, for no reason that I can see, there is no article that covers the TV broadcast of March Madness prior to 2011, and under the new title, this article can easily be expanded backwards to cover CBS's coverage of the Tournament prior to 2011. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)State within a stateDeep State – Currently this is the alternate name for this article. But Deep State seems to be the more well known term. 1 Million web hits for "State within a state", 6.9 Million for "Deep state". 937 thousand news hits for "Deep state" and 13 thousand for "State within a state" Obsidi (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15, 2018

  • (Discuss)Srubna cultureSrubnaya culture – Unclear why it was renamed from it's original "Srubnaya culture". Google NGRAM registers multiple usages of "Srubnaya culture" and doesn't register "Srubna culture" at all. Google scholar mentions 232 articles that mention "Srubnaya culture" and 65 "Srubna culture". Many of these appear to come from Ukrainian articles )9/10 on the first page of search results) too. Regular google registers 20600 pages that mention "srubnaya culture" and 11600 pages that mention "srubna culture" IT appears to me the renaming was done as a POV edit to push a particular (Ukrainian language-derived) form of spelling on Wikipedia. (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Metro CammellMetro-Cammell – The company has never been called "Metro Cammell". For a while it was Metropolitan Cammell, and then changed to Metro-Cammell. see evidence here: ElshadK (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yamna cultureYamnaya culture – Don't really understand where the Wikipedia's name came from. It's evidently the traditional spelling in:
    1) the literature (see Google Ngram, where the Yamnaya spelling is used 10 times more often than the other one and no trend of Yamna spelling becoming more (or less) popular
    2) Scientific articles (since Jan 1 2014 222 articles used "Yamnaya" spelling, vs 67 articles using the "Yamna" spelling. The difference holds true over any timespan, for all articles indexed on Google scholar, for example, the difference is 562 to 193. It also appears that about half (5 out of the first 10, 10 out of the first 20) the articles where "Yamna" spelling is used come from Ukrainian authors, where the Yamna/Ямна spelling is the standard one.
    3) Admittedly, the regular google searches return a slight disposition towards "Yamna" spelling (18600 results for "Yamnaya culture" vs 24,800 for "Yamna culture") but that is probably a reverse causation of this Wikipedia article influencing history popularizers. Either way, the difference is not that stark as with books (1.2 to 1 vs 1 to 10) or scientific articles (1.2 to 1 vs 1 to 3, and the article's topic is complex enough to use proper scientific nomenclature Historiographic tradition.
    4) Historiographical tradition The culture was originally called Yamnaya/Drevne-Yamnaya. As far as I can see, the first usage of the "Yamna" spelling comes from a 1979 article. That is, from an article published about 100 years after the culture was first identified and named.
    5) Most prominent textbooks/journals I know of use "Yamnaya" (e.g. Oxford handbooks, Nature, etc (I'd be glad if someone could find a single article using "Yamna" spelling coming from a top journal
    6) Also, and this is not a valid argument ofcourse, but I anticipate someone else bringing this argument so here it goes: according to the map from this article's infobox the culture's former geographic extent is now split between modern states of Russia and Ukraine, with Russia actually holding a slightly larger part. Archeological sites appear to be split in the same vein. But ofcourse neither modern Russians nor modern Ukrainian can be considered to be descendants of this group any more so than people currently residing in Siettle or northern India.
    7) There are many more arguments that I can list here, but 5 is probably enough, right? Feel free to bring your own counter-arguments and we can decide together on what to do with this article (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taj Hotels Resorts and PalacesTaj Hotels – The brand underwent a reshuffle and has now been named as just Taj Hotels instead of Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces. Please refer to this link: Ranjitmadmax (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14, 2018

  • (Discuss)National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOAA – It is a more common name per Google Ngram. Also, NOAA is widely used in media, and it appears more than the full name in online search. NOAA is a commonly recognised abbreviation that is unlikely to have confusion. Given that NASA is an example, I am here to suggest this rename. B dash (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test ProcedureWLTP – WLTP is the name used widely in media, giving several million search results on Google. Even official government sources, such as the EU website [8] use WLTP as a standard abbreviation. Currently the page WLTP is used for a local radio station, if you search 'WLTP radio', you still get lots of results about the emissions test, so clearly WLTP is first of all known as the subject of this article. The radio station's page could be moved to the branding they use on their own site, i.e. Newstalk 910 WLTP. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LightSail 2LightSail – This article already covers the entirety of the LightSail project, including LightSail 1. The current name does not accurately describe the contents of this article. XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ReptiliansReptilian humanoid – Current name is confusing; see discussion at the bottom of [9]. The animals in class Reptilia are reptilians; surely they're more significant than a concept that appears only in fantasy, science fiction, ufology, and conspiracy theories? Given the nature of the Internet, I don't think we can trust Google results here, since topics appearing in fantasy etc. are likely to get lots of hits on forums, personal websites, etc. Instead, I ran searches on JSTOR (from home, so it's not searching what my institution has access to) for reptilian and reptilians. Data: Reptilians by subject, out of 308 total: *Biological Sciences: 87 *Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 42 *Film Studies: 1 *Folklore: 0 *General Science: 33 *Language & Literature: 11 *Performing Arts: 0 *Sociology: 13 *Zoology: 27 Reptilian by subject, out of 23,312 total: *Biological Sciences: 7,565 *Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 2,339 *Film Studies: 115 *Folklore: 29 *General Science: 1,989 *Language & Literature: 1,318 *Performing Arts: 107 *Sociology: 231 *Zoology: 3,658 Note that these searches found 172 and 3,658 documents respectively, so many or most results have been assigned multiple subjects. Remember that JSTOR is more of a social sciences/humanities resource than a hard-sciences resource; if every item in JSTOR used these two terms, JSTOR would return fewer hard sciences results merely because of its scope. Therefore, when the hard-sciences usage vastly outnumbers the disciplines that might be studying this article's subject, it's clear that the animals are more significant than reptilian humanoids. [I expect that a large share of the Language and Literature people, in particular, are studying something other than this article's subject; among the top results are items on the Divine Comedy, Quetzalcoatl, bird evolution (how did that get into literature?), wyverns, alligators, and an Edgar Allen Poe poem.] Whether they're the primary topic I don't know, and I'm not arguing for moving the disambiguation page, but as they and reptilian humanoids are the only items on the disambiguation page that could reasonably get pluralized, it seems best to me that we move this article and make its title a redirect to Reptile. Final note, if we move this article, I'm not clear the best place; I got the proposed title from List of reptilian humanoids, but if you can propose a better title, that's great. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 13, 2018

  • (Discuss)Pledge of Allegiance (United States)Pledge of Allegiance – This was moved in 2017 in a questionable RM that had 1 participant and no proper discussion. The American Pledge of Allegiance is the overwhelming primary topic in terms of both historical significance and page views, getting roughly 30 times the amount of the other entries put together. This dab page was only moved to the base term yesterday, and in the preceding 30 days the redirect received more page views than the other entries put together. I can't get a multi-entry Pageviews Analysis URL to work so just imagine there's a link to one here, showing the disparity. Xezbeth (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)University of Michigan Institute for Social ResearchInstitute for Social Research (University of Michigan) – Unlike, say, "College of Engineering", which is a general name that will nearly always need qualification unless the context is obvious, "Institute for Social Research" is a specific name, shared with a few other institutions around the world, but not a generic term for a department of a university. It is also cited as its own entity, distinct from the university itself. Looking at Google Scholar, the institute is cited more than twice as often (20,500 times) as Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan as it is (8490 times) as University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, and even in the latter case, it is more often cited as University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research, making clear that it has its own distinct identity. I believe the proposed name is more in line with common usage. Sarcasmboy (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DVBBSDvbbs – Current name stylicised in caps, since name is not an established acronym the following letters after the first should be in lowercase. aNode (discuss) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

October 12, 2018

  • (Discuss)SwazilandeSwatini – With the survey of reliable sources above, it is clear that Swaziland is not longer WP:COMMONNAME, with only one news outlet after the official name change using "Swaziland" in its article. WP:COMMONNAME uses the "common name" as determined by "its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources," which as can been seen above has virtually all shifted away from Swaziland. Whether to move it to eSwatini or Eswatini can be further discussed, but given that this article is mainly written in South African English, whose papers mainly use "eSwatini," it seems more appropriate to adapt the spelling "eSwatini," although clearly that can still be discussed. Regardless, it is time to move away from this not common name anymore. DTM9025 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Maria Goeppert-MayerMaria Goeppert MayerWP:COMMONNAME: No sources use the hyphenated form. It seems to be a custom in some parts of the United States to refer to married women by both maiden and married names, and this is the common form in the literature (and is used throughout the article. It is sometimes confused with a double-barrel surname by British readers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cops (TV series)Cops (TV program) – Let's try this again, but actually follow WP:NCTV this time... Anyway, this is not a "TV series" under WP:NCTV (which are TV shows that "[tell] an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme" – i.e. TV shows "continuing story elements"). It is correctly a "TV program" (e.g. see the lede of America's Most Wanted, for one), and should be disambiguated thusly. Note, also that this will help to further distinguish this from the British TV show The Cops (TV series) which legitimately is a "TV series" in the true sense of the word. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Calala IslandLime Cay (Nicaragua) – Ongoing discussions between myself and Jake Brockman have not resulted in concensus on the titling of this article. I've nominated this on Jake Brockman's behalf as I feel a wider discussion about the titling of this article is needed. It was created under Calala Island, so have therefore started the discussion under the title where it was created (not sure, but think that would be protocoyl). There is also more discussion on Draft:Calala Island for those who want to read the full dialogue. KiteWings (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Estrildid finchEstrildidae – The most common name given in reliable sources, verifiable, systematised and accepted; or defer to [IOU breakaway] IOC the same name preferred at WP: Birds, "Estrildidae", that is parenthetically noted as "Waxbills, parrotfinches, munias, whydahs, Olive Warbler, accentors, pipits", abbreviated to "Waxbills, Munias and Allies", which is unsuitable for a title here for several reasons. cygnis insignis 12:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Free – This article was moved to Facebook Free Basics in February 2017 [10], which is per WP:COMMONNAME. It was then moved to several different names due to different policies and reasons. But after doing some research, I believe it should be moved back to is the name of the whole partnership and project by Facebook, and the current page title is really just one of the solutions under the project. [11][12] Free Basics doesn't really qualify as the common name as it is purely the name of its mobile app service. Wefk423 (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KievKyiv – Requested by the ministry of foreign affairs of Ukraine... (per this reference) "Kiev" is a russified, colonial name of the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym. "Kyiv" is approved by the United Nations. The conferences on Standartization of geographic names. The UN group of experts on Geographical names. And most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 11, 2018

  • (Discuss)Brad FillatreBradley Arthur Maxwell – The artist has formally change his name to Bradley Arthur Maxwell and is currently in process of deleting anything with Brad Fillatre. Reasoning includes search engine results. Proof can be seen on and where the artist has already begun this process. His label Sparks/Universal has also made note of this change as visible at at the top of the bio (Fka Brad Fillatre). If the name of this page will not be changed then the artist requests this page be deleted please. Submitting request on behalf of 2605:e000:1520:663:2d19:da2c:c0ba:f5a2 per these edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)VLDBVLDB Conference – VLDB stands for Very Large DataBases and is generally penned in capitals. It is inappropriate that a search for this term goes directly to the Conference. By moving the article to the title VLDB Conference this allows for VLDB to become a disambiguation page to Very large Database, VLDB Conference and other things such as VLDB toolbox? and VLDB journal should those be deemed notable and archive a Wikipedia article. There are about a score of valid inbound links currently to VLDB and these would be dealt with before changing VLDB from a redirect from aVLDB Conference redirect to a DAB, though changing them to the existing redirect International Conference on Very Large Data Bases would be an alternative Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 12:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PećPeja – The official name of the city is Peja. You can see this in their Municipality Website Hakuli (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Charlie Rose (TV series)Charlie Rose (talk show) – This TV show is absolutely not a "TV series" under WP:NCTV. A few sources at the article call in an "interview show", e.g. [18] (which might make it a "TV program"), but one source ([19]) calls it a "talk show", and that's probably the most accurate disambiguator as per WP:NCTV. And it looks like that's where the article originally started out, apparently (it was moved from "talk show" in 2012)... --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

October 10, 2018

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)LactobacillalesLactic acid bacteria – Lactic acid bacteria is the common name; lactobacillales hardly registers on ngrams; google search shows 158K for Lactobacillales and 2 million plus for Lactic acid bacteria; Lactic acid bacteria was a long-standing page name and page refers constantly to LAB. Iztwoz (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zoo keyTalking Storybook – This seems to be the most common name for the system described here; [22] [23] [24]. I'm not sure whether it should be in titlecase or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)OSF HealthcareOSF HealthCare – Company prefers capital 'C' as its common-use name - see near address in footer on company website. Legal name is OSF Healthcare System. COI: I am employed by OSF HealthCare. Nlorentz (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Judiciary of the Republic of IrelandCourts of the Republic of Ireland – I'd like to propose a move back to the old title. In the Irish legal context the Judiciary refers to the body of judges who sit in the courts not the courts themselves. This is not an article about the judiciary, not more than an article about an article about a university is about academics. As it stands if the current title is kept the lead should be changed to: "The Judiciary of Ireland consist of the judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court." I think that sounds a bit odd so I'd like to propose reverting the rename instead. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HyndburnBorough of Hyndburn – Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME the district is usually called "Hyndburn District"[25] or "Borough of Hyndburn" in a generic context even though "Hyndburn" is the preferred label by the OS, presumably when its clear from the context that you're referring to the district. The district is named after the River Hyndburn and this move is consistent with WP:UKDISTRICTS ("Non-metropolitan districts with local ambiguity...". Views [[26]] show that this doesn't get significantly more views anyway even it it was just called "Hyndburn". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)East TimorTimor-Leste – The country is known by the international community as Timor-Leste. See for example the United Nations Mission in Timor-Leste, UNESCO, the US State Department's Office of the Historian, and the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Te Karere (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Against the GalilaeansAgainst the Galileans – article is spelled without the ae diphthong, 153,000 Google hits for Galileans versus 20,000 for Galilaeans . Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Traditionalist theology (Islam)Literalism (Islamic theology) – Is the title of Traditionalist theology (Islam) accurate and NPOV? Even the very first citation referenced uses the label of Athari. I'm not saying the article revert back to Athari, but I am questioning whether this is an appropriate WP:COMMONNAME to use the former. If the article title is being used in the manner of a descriptor than perhaps "literalism" is more accurate. See also Biblical literalism. Titling it "traditionalist theology" also gives the impression that the Ashari and Maturidi theology, employed by the majority of Sunnis, is "non-traditional" or unorthodox. It's a bit too POV in it's labeling, and I've certainly seen people outside of Wikipedia reference the article in such a manner. Since the theology extends to both Quran and Hadith a better title may be Literalism (Islamic theology). This wording is the most appropriate as all sources, whether it uses "Athari" or "Traditionalist" or "Hanbali" etcetera, use literalism to describe the methodology. It encompasses all the relevant ideologies, is supported by sources, and is not POV or susceptible to misinterpretation either. It's is the clearest way to title this topic. DA1 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RTHKRadio Television Hong Kong – the full spelling is common name and more recognizable, see also on secondary source Matthew_hk tc 20:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


See also


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. This is also often done (without an additional "Support" intro) to provide additional detail, such as sources, that would be unwieldy in the nomination statement (remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list at this requested moves page).
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