Wikipedia:Requested moves

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 moves 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 consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed 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 closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested 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 been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a 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 {} 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 one of the following applies:

  • there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);
  • 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 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 21 September 2019" 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.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request is made for a page that is not the subject page of the talk page on which the request must be made. An example would be to make a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code:

{} 
and generally:
{} 

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

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).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{}

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.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

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 21 September 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (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 21 September 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (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 21 September 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019‎ (UTC)

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection 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.
Discussion
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 21 September 2019

– why Example (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (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 21 September 2019

– why Example (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes 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, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with 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 using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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 requested move

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.[b] 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 by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}} or {{Mdn}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

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. 44 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

September 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)Alnus viridisAlnus alnobetulaAlnus viridis is listed as a synonym of Alnus alnobetula in Kew's Plants of the World Online. The basionym of A. alnobetula is a couple years older than that for A. viridis, but I'm not sure if that is the reason it's accepted in POWO, or even if that might be out of date. Alnus viridis ia actually listed as a synonym of the nominotypical and European subspecies of A. alnobetula, but that just seems incorrect, since there are accepted North American subspecies of A. alnobetula in POWO too. Someone who knows more about taxonomy than I should feel free to explain why this would be. Thank you! Hyperik talk 16:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ashcan copyAshcan comic – I would have done this as a straight move without this process if it were not for the forthcoming MP appearance (which as I type may be postponed). There has been some discussion at WP:ERRORS, where there seems to be consensus that this should be moved (you will need to examine WP:ERRORS history on this day, as it is frequently deleted). Ashcan comic and Ashcan edition seem far more used other than in Wiki mirrors, and ashcan copy can apply to film and television as well, which would need explaining in the lead, and therefore diverting from the main topic. Ashcan comic would allow for reverting to the main contributor's favoured introductory sentence "...is a type of..." which I have edited today. Kevin McE (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sky Television plcSky Television (1989) – Current title has "plc" distinguishing it from the other Sky Televisions. As per Naming conventions (companies), legal status suffixes such as "plc", "Inc." and so on are generally discouraged as disambiguators. This applies particularly here- while people may recognise that "plc" implies it's a company, that's not useful if (as in this case) so are all the other Sky Televisions. Most people wouldn't know- or care- which one happened to be the "plc" without further explanation. (I've suggested a new name- "1989" intended to make clear that this is the historical entity- but if anyone has a better suggestion and/or one more closely in line with the guidelines, I'd be happy to consider that instead.) Ubcule (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)GoldenrodSolidago – The vast majority of plant articles are listed under their Latin name. There is a very good reason for this - the Latin name is unique, and by definition cannot apply to any other plant. It is recognised internationally as the name for this plant and only this plant. The name “goldenrod”, on the other hand, most definitely does apply to several different plants. Species names of Solidago are listed with Solidago as the genus name. Plant databases almost exclusively use the Latin name. Darorcilmir (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Luccombe, Isle of WightLuccombe Village – Per WP:WIAN as noted this is the name on the Ordnance Survey thus being consistent with the OS in other cases. "Village" is a proper noun and this per WP:SMALLDETAILS this is allowed since although the Somerset one is a village it doesn't have village as part of the name. It can be seen from a Google search of "Luccombe Village" that "Village" is only capitalized when referring to the Isle of Wight location but not the Somerset location [1][2][3][4]. See this GBook result for example where the Somerset one is referred to as "Luccombe" and the OIW one as "Luccombe Village". Consider for example the city in the united states called "New York" is commonly known as "New York City" therefore its acceptable to have city without brackets (like New York (city) unlike Dallas City, Boston City and Los Angeles City. Similar examples would be Mercury Planet, United States Country, Wikipedia Website and Donald Drump President which aren't part of the name even though they are all instances of such. As can be seen from Street List the IOW one is actually a hamlet not a village anyway but similar to Isle of Lewis its acceptable to use a name that the topic isn't an instance of as long as its a proper noun see User:Crouch, Swale/Called v is and where. Given the concerns raised about the fact that the IOW one is sometimes just "Luccombe" I'm not proposing that move this time thus the DAB can remain at the base name. Also note that "Luccombe Village" already redirects here and I fixed it after the move to continue pointing here (which was when I discovered that this one is actually "Luccombe Village"). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chuu (single album)Chuu – This is the only article titled "Chuu". The singer lacks sufficient independent notability for her own article but is a related topic anyway, and there really isn't much else besides. I'm not convinced that a dab page is needed and in lieu of anything else the single should be regarded as a primary topic. PC78 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ore MountainsErzgebirge – Several editors, above and elsewhere, have expressed an opinion that "Ore Mountains" is simply not commonly used in English, and that the range is much better known by its German name Erzgebirge. Indeed, ngram from English corpus seems to favor Erzgebirge to a ~5:1 ratio for modern works and even more for the older (despite some likely pollution from German-language sources misidentified as English). "Ore Mountains" are not completely unattested (Britannica has it), but seem to lag far behind. No such user (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)Chloris (bird)Greenfinch – I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:COMMONNAME. All the species listed on this page are called something greenfinch, we should prefer common names over scientific ones wherever possible. Considered bold-moving but I am nominating for RM just in case there is something I'm missing - I don't usually edit this topic area. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Augustinian CalvinismAugustine's influence on John Calvin – I was thinking about afding this, but I think there might be something to salvage. I don't think the term Augustinian Calvinism is notable. But the page isn't really about that term anyway, but the connection between Augustine and Calvin's theology on a few points. Jfhutson (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Catalan independence movementCatalan independence
    :The important rules here are WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME:
    ::1)Recognizability - The proposed title is more recognisable than the present one, being more closely linked to the concept itself. ::2)Naturalness - Since the real topic here is the concept of Catalan independence, not the movement itself, the proposed title is more natural. ::3)Precision - The real topic here is the concept of independence. This is demonstrated by the section on the opponents of independence, and criticism of the idea of independence, which would be something not covered in an article that was simply about the movement itself, any more than you would expect to see a section on the UK Conservative party in the article on the UK Labour party. Moreover none of things you would expect to see for a political movement are present - there is no indication of membership, structure, organisation etc. that you would expect to see in an article about an actual political movement (see e.g., Labour movement). ::4)Conciseness - Catalan independence is 20 characters including the spaces vs 29 for the present title. ::5)Consistency - other articles related to the proposed independence of a territory typically have the title "XXXX independence", see Scottish independence, Welsh independence, English independence, Hong Kong independence. The main exception is where the concept is better known as "nationalism" (e.g., Basque nationalism, Corsican nationalism) or separatism/secession, but this title has been rejected in previous discussions because "nationalism", "secession" and so-forth are thought to have negative connotations. ::6)Common Name - Remembering that GScholar hits are preferred to ordinary Google hits as they show use in reliable sources, and that you have to page through to the last page of results to see the actual count as Google's estimate is wildly inaccurate, I note that there are more than 980 GScholar hits for "Catalan independence" (I can't give the exact figure as it crashes after the 98th page) v 383 GScholar hits for "Catalan independence movement". "Catalan independence" is clearly the common name for the movement.
    FOARP (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SpaceX launch vehiclesLaunch vehicles of SpaceX – Opening a move discussion since there were objections to the specific naming scheme. The previous move discussion did not come up with any rationale as to why "SpaceX launch vehicles" is better than "Launch vehicles of SpaceX". To expand upon my notes from the original discussion in support of "Launch vehicles of SpaceX", using the subject as a prefix followed by the preposition "of" makes it clear and explicit that the article is detailing a topic on SpaceX. It makes clear the seperation of subject and company name, and makes for a clear indication that the article is a child of the parent SpaceX article. Immediately following the company's name with the subject like in "SpaceX launch vehicles", however, makes it unclear as to whether it is a subdivision or brand of SpaceX, which it is not. Even accounting for MOS-mandated casing, it would still be confusing. Also muddied would be the otherwise clear indication that the article is a child of the parent SpaceX article, as "launch vehicles" would now be the subject of the name, rather than "SpaceX", implying that it is a child of the parent article Launch vehicle, which it is not. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)Lisa WilsonLesa Wilson – Name is changed to Lesa Wilson. Title needs to be changed to reflect that. Website: www.lesawilson.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm2256974/ as sources. LesaWilson (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marta García LopezMarta García (racing driver) – None of the reliable sources in the article use Lopez and the vast majority of sources which aren't in the article (such as this) don't use Lopez. Therefore this article title shouldn't include Lopez as niether Lopez nor García Lopez is not what she is commonly known as (as explained in WP:COMMONNAME).
    SSSB (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Paul Richard ThomasRichard Thomas (zoologist) – I feel that the most natural name for this article would be "Richard Thomas (zoologist)", not his full name, given that he is overwhelmingly known as "Richard Thomas" (as far as I know, also the form he has used in all his publications), and following the principle "use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources" (WP:NCP). Tellingly, the non-existent "Richard Thomas (zoologist)" has far more incoming links that the current page title. This naming would also be consistent with the existing Category:Taxa named by Richard Thomas (zoologist) as well 4 other Wikipedias where he is featured. Micromesistius (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fan TatPhạm DậtLâm Ấp rulers used neither Chinese nor Vietnamese, but Lâm Ấp was located in central-southern Vietnam. It was Indianized while northern Vietnam was ruled by China. Even though surviving sources are in Chinese, northern Vietnamese pronunciations of these Chinese characters are probably closer to reality. In addition, Lâm Ấp is part of Vietnam's history, not China's. 67.149.246.163 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)ZoellaZoe Sugg – Sugg now goes by her birth name, Zoe Sugg. She has publicly stated that she no longer uses the Zoella channel, and has adopted the use of her Zoe Sugg YouTube channel more. She has also changed her social media usernames to ZoeSugg. Independent sources such as Metro, Hello!, Stylist and Shemazing refer to her as Zoe Sugg, rather than Zoella. DarkGlow (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cricket (disambiguation)Cricket – While references for "cricket" (singular) are probably more common for the sport than the insect as someone in England I don't think its overwhelming. The sport is only a few hundred years old but the insect has been around far longer and would likely be so in the future even if the sport became less popular. Both topics are level 4 vital articles. While its true that there is a direct link to the insect, a DAB page is less confusing and has less content to load. In addition there are other uses of "Cricket". The sport has 127,979 views but the insect has 28,767, Tettigoniidae has 20,163 and Cricket (darts) has 3,413 [[8]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Non placeNon-place – 1. Most sources (see Google Search results) spell it with a hyphen; 2. It is conventional that "non" followed by a hyphen. 3. This word was coined with a hyphen (in Non-Places, introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, or Non-lieux, introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité in French). H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 09:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hamlet (1921 film)Hamlet: The Drama of Vengeance
    *MOS/Film naming conventions say that If the film title itself is in doubt, give precedence to what is printed on the film. Looking at the film, the title is listed as Hamlet: The Drama of Vengeance. *WP:NCDAB says Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Although many sources just list the title as Hamlet, there are a decent amount that list the full name, including the following books: **1. Hamlet: Revised Edition edited by Ann Thompson et al. 2. Shakespeare in the Movies by Douglas Brode 3. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film by Russell Jackson 4. Screen Adaptation: Impure Cinema by Deborah Cartmel et al. 5. 100 Shakespeare Films by Daniel Rosenthal. 6. Shakespeare on Screen by Kenneth Sprague Rothwell et al. 7. Shakespeare and His Contemporaries in Performance by Edward J. Esche. 8. A History of Shakespeare on Screen by Kenneth S. Rothwell. 9. No Hamlets by Andreas Höfele. 10. Shakespeare and the Imprints of Performance by J. Gavin Paul.
    WanderingWanda (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GwaziIron Gwazi – Per the discussion in the previous section with unanimous support, Gwazi needs to be moved to Iron Gwazi, which is already a stub article with an editing history. Gwazi's editing history must be preserved in the process, so I've closed the discussion above and opened a formal requested move. After the move has been made, we can integrate recent changes at Iron Gwazi into the article (as an extra precaution, I've made a copy of the article in my sandbox). GoneIn60 (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)IPad Mini (2019)IPad Mini (5th generation) – Unlike the main iPad and Air lineup, naming conventions do not conflict with each other in the Mini lineup, there's an uninterrupted linear progression between models. Additionally, this Mini is referred to in Apple's internal media as the iPad Mini (5th generation). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)Snipping ToolSnip & Sketch – This is the new name of the app, most of the functionality is the same, there is just more options when using the screenshot shortcut ⊞ Win+⇧ Shift+S. And yes the original app "Snipping Tool" still exists on newer versions of Windows. Awesome Aasim 05:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sallie Gardner at a GallopThe Horse in Motion – The new title The Horse in Motion was the title printed on the series of cards that is the subject of this article. The old title Sallie Garner at a Gallop is a recent name given to just one of these cards (or to GIF animations of its images). The card that does depict "Sallie Gardner" does not seem to stand out in the series, or the article fails to relate any reasons why it would stand out. The term "gallop" was not used in the printed texts on any of the cards, and it is unlikely that Muybridge or Stanford would have liked it in a title for their work. The term "gallop" was probably dismissed by them, for reasons stated in the related book The Horse in Motion that was published under auspices of Leland Stanford (see https://archive.org/details/horseinmotionass00stilrich/page/100 p. 100-103) Joortje1 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 15, 2019

  • (Discuss)Elite Football WomenElitfotboll Dam – I strongly object to the procedure of translating names that are not titles, for headlines and designations. This organisation is not really an authority and institution with a set function explained by its name. It's an interest organisation with a rather arbitrary name, a lobby of sorts, whose sole purpose is to bring the voices of all clubs in the top two league tiers into one when communicating to SvFF, and therefore not to be translated, just as club names are not translated. In other words, this organisation has a name rather than a title. The meaning of a name (translation) can be mentioned in the article, but not used as a designation. They also do not work internationally and thus have no need for a translation.
    By contrast, Svenska Fotbollförbundet (SvFF) is an institution and governing body with a clear purpose to organise leagues, national teams and football in general in Sweden, which is implied by the name, and could therefore be translated in its designations (which is Swedish Football Association). SvFF also works internationally and thus has a need to translate their title and position. Almost every country on earth has a football association with the same functions. Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14, 2019

  • (Discuss)2017 Egyptian Super Cup → ? – This is very a common issue that happens in many countries like Italy for example, but for Egypt it happens way too often that it probably reached a point where we should change the articles name. The 2018 Egyptian Super Cup for example (which was supposed to be played before the start of the 2018–19 Egyptian Premier League in July 2018) was postponed for more than 14 months and is now scheduled to be played in late September 2019. At this point, I believe that the name of all articles above should be changed but I'm not sure what name can we use exactly. The best solution that came to my head is to change the title from including years to including seasons; for example, the 2018 Egyptian Super Cup should be moved to 2018–19 Egyptian Super Cup so it'd mean that the match was played during that season and not the year included. I'm sure this is the best solution we have here (probably the only one) and won't cause any confusion to the visitors, but there will be one problem; moving the articles to the name I suggested will probably break WP:CONSISTENCY since I'm pretty sure there's no articles that uses seasons instead of years in the title. Maybe there's other better suggestions but I don't think so. Ben5218 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sino-Sikh WarDogra-Tibetan War – This is how reliable sources describe this war. (See below.) This page was started in 2010, which seems to have spurred a certain number of weak sources and Chinese sources to adopt the term "Sino-Sikh War". But the established sources have always used the traditional term "Dogra-Tibetan War". Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)CholentHamin – "Hamin" is the standard Hebrew name for the dish, while "Cholent" is the Ashkenazi variant; there other varieties prepared by other Jewish populations such as Moroccan, Sephardic, Yemenite, Iraqi, etc. so a more standard name should be used. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kris ReyKris Swanberg – Looking at her filmography, as well as news articles about her, it's obvious that "Kris Swanberg" has been her main name, both personally and professionally, since getting married in 2007. She's credited as "Kris Rey" for the upcoming film I Used to Go Here, and I don't know why - but that's just one movie. I think it's too early to name this article "Kris Rey". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Portal:PoliticsPortal:Government and politicsPortal:Government already redirects here, but government and politics are not identical concepts. There are many aspects of government which are, at least ideally, non-political. Changing the portal name would make it clear that all aspects of both areas fall within the coverage of this portal. bd2412 T 03:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Sway (song)Sway (Luis Demetrio song)WP:INCDAB. There are currently a dozen other songs with the same name listed at Sway, including highly notable ones, such as by The Rolling Stones and The Kooks. If we're going to add a disambiguating term, it should be one that is sufficient to identify the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Transportation network company → ? – Ridesharing is by far the most popular term used now in national and international publications and on search. Alternative: Ridesharing company * Washington Post: "Lyft outlines all the reasons ridesharing could fail, in its IPO documents" [5] * NYT: "Rideshare, Delivery Apps Pledge $90M California Ballot Fight"[6] * CNN: "New bill would make rideshare drivers benefits-eligible"[7] * BBC: "Ride-sharing company Lyft"[8] * Google Trends has rideshare at 69, ridesharing at 4, ridehailing at 0 (the AP suggestion), transportation network company at <1, and TNC (which can be many other things) at 23 for the week of Sept 1 - 7, 2019.[9]. * Usage of TNC is mainly limited to California law and insurance company usage. * The drivers themselves, including The Rideshare Guy, and driver's labor groups like Rideshare Drivers United, which are cited in news reports, also use this term. Proposal is to add disambiguation at top of page: "See also carpooling, vanpooling, and peer-to-peer ridesharing", change the wording inside this article, and also move Legality of transportation network companies by jurisdiction to Legality of ridesharing companies by jurisdiction. I recognize that the proposed move to ridesharing is not a direct substitute for ridesharing company (that's an alternative option - there is an odd gap between rideshare->mainly carpools - and ridesharing/mainly leads to these companies). I believe a move away from transportation network company will be ultimately beneficial to knowledge and reflect WP:COMMONNAME. ===References===

9sovereign (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Crow NationCrow people – The name of this tribe is Crow Tribe of Montana not "Crow Nation." If "nation" were retained, it should be lowercase. Since the article is primarily about the people, "Crow people" fits established naming protocols and avoids potential confusion with the crow bird. Yuchitown (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   samee  converse  18:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AlacalufeKawésqar – 1. Kawésqar is of their preference, 2. Kawésqar is used by most modern anthropologists and 3 . Chilean law. See this article from Magallania for details. Alacalufe, albiet also of widespread use is not prefered by the people, is not used by most modern anthropologist and is etymological a series of added-up mispellings of a kawésqar word. Sietecolores (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Canadian Tire Financial ServicesCanadian Tire Bank – As of January 1, 2015, Canadian Tire Financial Services, Limited, no longer exists and was renamed Canadian Tire Services, Limited. Canadian Tire no longer refers to its financial services reporting segment/operating division by this name, either, and instead uses the trade name Canadian Tire Bank, which is also a further subsidiary of Canadian Tire Services, Limited, through CTFS Holdings, Limited, which is, in turn, owned 80% by CTC and 20% by Scotia. Thus, it makes sense to use the trade name Canadian Tire Bank as the new page name instead of Canadian Tire Service; however, this requires an administrator to delete the Canadian Tire Bank redirect page. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bumps & Bruises (Ugly God album)Bumps & Bruises – This article was recently moved to its current title and a disambiguation page was created at Bumps & Bruises, but the reasoning behind the move is unclear to me. Since we don't have an article for the other item on the disambiguation page, this seems like it would be better handled with a hatnote than with a disambiguation page. Eureka Lott 18:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Elegidos (La música en tus manos)Elegidos, la música en tus manos – While the article title is Elegidos (La música en tus manos) and the infobox title is Elegidos: La música en tus manos, the 2 working sources call is Elegidos, la música en tus manos. A graphic overlay seen in an episode also uses the proposed title. Since I'm not familiar with the show, I preferred to take this to RM to see if I've missed anything. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chen JiongmingChen Chiung Ming
    #Chen was a well known politician of Kwangtung in early 20th century. He was known as Chen Chiung Ming in contemporary newspapers. Search chiung ming in https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk/web/guest/old-hk-collection and you will find plenty of examples. #Google (chen chiung ming site:nytimes.com) vs (jiongming site:nytimes.com). #In his son's donation to Columbia Uni [14][15], he was referred to as such too. #Pinyin was formalised long after Chen's death. Roy17 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saint Peter's SchoolSaint Peter's School (St. Petersburg) – and then this page be pointed to St Peter's School, which is a disambiguation page with many entries. All searches on St Peter's School go there already, but Saint Peter's School comes here. I think this distinction is rather subtle and is lost on your typical searcher.

    Saint Peter's School is an old, famous, large, and historically important school. It is probably the the top result (in importance, not pageviews) for St/Saint Peter's School. But there are so many other St Peter's schools, that together they prevent this school (which after all is not in the Anglosphere) from being the Primary topic.

    As to pageviews, this page (Saint Peter's School) is getting three a day, while for instance St. Peter's Boys School in India alone is getting 230 a day. So... Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)F.E.A.R.F.E.A.R. (video game) – Not sure why the last move request failed. Pageviews indicate that the series page and other games in the series get roughly 200 views daily while the F.E.A.R. article gets around 400, indicating that many people are probably getting brought to the first game when they just want info on the series. It makes sense to move the series page to the main namespace, as all the games are clearly notable in some respect. @Steel1943:, @Neverrainy:, @Cuchullain:, @The1337gamer:, @Amakuru: as involved in the last move attempt. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SkyWay GroupString transport – The company does not seem to be as notable as the technology. This needs to focus on the technology and not on the company as it seems like it only exists as an attack on the company. The times the company is mentioned, it is not referred to as the legal name, just associated or also known as names. The references also discuss more about the technology than the company. I am also disclosing that I am an investor in the technology. Nomaninvi (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PećPeja – Kosovo has declared its independence in 2008. Previously Kosovo was an autonomous province of Yugoslavia and later a region of Serbia. In this time (1974-89) Albanian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish were official language (Article 131). Look at the census of 2011: There are 94% Albanians - which means that the people in Peja would more use Peja as Peć. Let me show you reliable English-language sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) - there are many sources (books (published in different years), newspaper articles (NYT)). Certainly there are sources for Peć too. But look here on this result of Peć and Peja. According to WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCRN): Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. (added ElmedinRKS (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)) When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. ElmedinRKS (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

References


See also