Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect 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. For requesting 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.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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 {{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.
Shortcut


Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

  • Acoli people → Acholi people (move · discuss) – Rv. move & duplication of article before we need to request a history merge. Editor brought up discussion to move article from English (OED) spelling to Acholi spelling of name, was refused, moved article anyway, and created duplicate under 'Acholi people'. Page history is under 'Acoli people', should be moved back to 'Acholi' before people start editing the latter. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcut

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 08 June 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 WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, WT:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources|new1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}
and generally:
{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

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:

{{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.}}

See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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 08 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 13:39, 08 June 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 08 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:39, 08 June 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 08 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 13:39, 08 June 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 08 June 2019

– why Example (talk) 13:39, 08 June 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 08 June 2019

– why Example (talk) 13:39, 08 June 2019 (UTC)

Commenting in 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 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

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

Shortcut
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)

June 8, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Sarah Essen Gordon → Sarah Essen – The character was first introduced as Sarah Essen prior to her marriage with Batman's ally Commissioner Gordon. However, because of time travels, their marriage has never taken place in the current DC Comics publications' continuity and making Gordon's first wife Barbara Eileen Kean as the only woman he married to. Despite she did not make a reappearance, it is reasoned that she is now just Sarah Essen. NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 7, 2019

  • (Discuss) – COnnecting REpositories → CORE – The project has stopped using the acronym COnnecting REpositories since ~2017. Thus we would like to change the page title to its current name, CORE. After that we will also update the content of the page, as it is outdated. I work for CORE. Nancypontika (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Taichi Mukai → Mukai Taichi – English Wikipedia's current policy on Japanese names is to "Use the form personally or professionally used by the person, if available in the English/Latin alphabet". On his website where his name is written with Roman characters it is ordered as "Mukai Taichi". The few times it is written in Roman characters on the covers of his own music releases it is ordered as "Mukai Taichi". The URLs of those sources have "taichimukai" in them, but the policy specifically instructs to "not rely on a URL". See this discussion explaining the justification for titling Utada Hikaru with the family name first for a similar case. Tempjrds (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Gen Hoshino → Hoshino Gen – English Wikipedia's current policy on Japanese names is to "Use the form personally or professionally used by the person, if available in the English/Latin alphabet". His name is very consistently officially romanized as "Hoshino Gen". It is written in this order on the front of all of his solo music releases and in all of the images on his website on which his name is written in Roman characters. There are exceptions: his record label's page for him has one use of "Gen Hoshino" and this also tends to be used to title videos on his YouTube channel. I feel that what is on the covers of the music releases and actually in the videos (which cannot easily be changed retrospectively and is more likely to be personally supervised by him) carries more weight than these two cases (which could easily be changed as they are in the form of text rather than bitmap images and are more likely to be made by label staff without consulting him). See this discussion explaining the justification for titling Utada Hikaru with the family name first for a similar case. Tempjrds (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – B&H Photo Video → B&H Photo – Per WP:COMMONNAME. If you search Google News, almost all of the results will say "B&H" or "B&H Photo" rather than a longer term. I consider this case similar to United States, where "US" (like "B&H") is commonly used but considered a bit too informal to be an encyclopedic title and "United States of America" is primarily used in formal/official contexts (like "B&H Photo Video Pro Audio", the actual full name of the business), so I consider "B&H Photo" the Goldilocks choice. To be fair, the website is at https://www.bhphotovideo.com/, but we've never been too big on official names and in fact this press release shows that even they are not consistent in using "B&H Photo Video". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

June 6, 2019

  • (Discuss) – K9 (Doctor Who) → ? – Character has been featured in four television series, two of which are Doctor Who spin-offs and one of which is unrelated to Doctor Who. Due to this I think the article should be moved since the character received main billing at one point or another in all four series. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Space RIDER → Space Rider – Both a commonly recognisable name for the spacecraft, and its official name. There is no source for a capitalised "Space RIDER" name, and multiple sources for the normal caps "Space Rider" name. [1][2][3][4][5] – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sir Thomas Green → Thomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr) – This entry was listed a day or two ago at uncontroversial technical requests, but has remained unresolved. The text accompanying the submission pointed out that the honorific was not needed, but did not include a suggestion as to how the main header should be disambiguated. Subject's standing as ancestor of Henry VIII's last wife seems to be a reasonable qualifier, while other editors may propose qualifiers which are deemed to be more intuitive. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Alliaria petiolata → Garlic mustard – This is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME. A google news search for "garlic mustard" gives 12,700 results. "alliaria petiolata" gives 307 results. Of the latter articles, every one I checked also used the term "garlic mustard" (usually giving the species name once in parentheses, but using "garlic mustard" elsewhere throughout). Not only is "garlic mustard" more common in journalism, it's more common in the text of the article (Alliaria petiolata) itself. Alliaria petiolata appears only once (in the first sentence), whereas "garlic mustard" appears 13 times in the article. (It's also used in the title of a related article: Garlic mustard as an invasive species). "Garlic mustard" also wins in an ngram search. I will concede that the species name appears slightly more often than the common name in scientific papers, according to Google Scholar: 2,130 results for "alliaria petiolata" since 2015, vs. 1,440 results for "garlic mustard". But it's much less lop-sided than the difference in the News corpus. And the latter corpus is arguably more relevant to judging which name will be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Colin M (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2019 Venezuelan uprising → 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes – This article's name has been the subject of vibrant discussion on this talk page for more than a month, and I'd like for us to achieve a consensus and put it to rest. I believe this proposed title is both well-sourced per WP:V and neutral per WP:NPOV. Both the current title and other proposed titles (such as coup) have been strongly opposed, but I believe this proposed title meets the concerns of said titles' oppositions. This has been discussed for weeks, but it was requested that I start another RM. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Clean Wehrmacht → Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht – Article titles reflect what the articles are about. Here the title suggests that we're writing about a phenomenon ("cleanliness of the Wehrmacht"), when we're actually writing about the myth of the phenomenon. We ought, then, to use the correct classifier, just as we do with "Moon landing conspiracy theories" and "Holocaust denial" (though the latter should more appropriately be called "denialism"). Using the existing name without a classifier suggests the phenomenon was real rather than mythical, which is inappropriate for a subject of this gravity and contention. If this was listed as one myth of many, then we could've used it without a classifier, but as it is rarely the case (see this change for typical usage), we ought to clarify from the get-go what it is and what it isn't. François Robere (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Taraxacum → Dandelion – The article for dandelions uses the scientific name of the plant, Taraxacum. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly discourages this: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Applying WP:GOOGLETEST as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME shows that there are ~4.7M hits for "Taraxacum", and ~122M (more than 25x more) for "dandelion". I would move the article myself, but I'm unable to for some reason. Stephen Hui (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Holocaust in Poland → The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland – Since the infobox in the article actually says the full, correct name, and the article name clearly suggest that such state as Poland did exist and/or participated in Holocaust as a country. Not denying the examples of collaboration from the particular Poles, the title suggest that the country as a whole did cooperate, like e.g. Mussolini's Italy, or Ustashe NDH did. The title as a whole is misleading, and untrue. Since the Wikipedia should be objective and abstain from suggesting any views, I request changing the article name to the correct one, underlying the historical truth. Kasabian (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – L'amour est bleu → Love Is Blue – WP:COMMONNAME states that the English Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." A Google search for English language results returns only 51k results for "L'amour est bleu" Mauriat but over 280k for "Love Is Blue" Mauriat, indicating that most reliable English language sources use the English title. The U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart uses "Love Is Blue (L'amour est bleu)", and the UK Singles Chart uses the same two-language format. The 2003 book The Billboard Book of Number One Hits uses the English title most of the time. A front-page story from the February 17, 1968 Billboard magazine in America mentions "Love Is Blue" without the French name. This song is more widely known around the world by its English title, because Paul Mauriat's instrumental version marketed with the English title made the music charts not just in Europe but also the U.S. The original version with the French title and lyrics was popular only in Europe. Because this song is more widely known in the English-speaking world as "Love Is Blue" I propose using that title. In contrast, the article about the German language song "99 Luftballons" retains the German title, because the German version was more popular around the world (including the US) than the English remake. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

June 4, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Francis Dee (bishop) → Francis Dee – This should be probably considered an uncontroversial technical move, however, taking into account that the main header for the bishop's page has remained unchanged since its creation nearly ten years ago (August 2009), an RM might be appropriate for the historical record. The two-entry Francis Dee disambiguation page (with one duplicate "See also" entry for Frances Dee), created in 2012 from a 2006 redirect to Frances Dee, is unnecessary since Wikipedia has only a single entry for Francis Dee and a single entry for Frances Dee where a hatnote specifies, "Not to be confused with Francis Dee." Another hatnote atop Francis Dee is all that is needed. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Proroctví → Prophecy (board game) – Reasons: 1. Clearer title for an English speaker 2. more descriptive title 3. resolving redlink at "2002" of Vladimír_Chvátil#Board_Games and possibly also elsewhere. As for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the current title grossly violates Recognizability, Naturalness and Precision, the new title meets Precision, Consistency (and Conciseness as long there is only one board game whose English name is "Prophecy"). Redirect from here should be preserved because it is the original game title. Pavel Jelínek (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Samsung Galaxy S10 → Galaxy S10 – Manufacturer name not needed in page title. Due to the prominence of the Galaxy S brand for the most part, it is readily apparent that we are talking about the Samsung phone models (much like how we do not refer to all iPhone models as "Apple iPhone" on Wikipedia). This request's consensus can also apply to all other Galaxy S models (though I'm only weary of the original model). ViperSnake151  Talk  18:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cryptomonad → Cryptophyte – In the 2010s, 'Cryptophyte' has surpassed 'Cryptomonad' as the most common preferred informal term for this group. Roughly 3x the number of results in returned articles by Google Scholar Search. In articles where both terms appear, Cryptophyte is usually printed first, with Cryptomonad often in quotes. Thereppy (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fossil fuel phase-out → Phasing out of fossil fuels – There was an RM in 2016, which proposed moving to "Fossil-fuel phase-out", on the grounds that the current title is ungrammatical and requires a hyphen in "fossil fuel" as a compound modifier. That proposal (which was also lumped in with others) failed to gain consensus, but there was some support for an alternative construction, "Phasing out of fossil fuels". I'm proposing that as a formal RM, and in isolation, now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 3, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Azeri style → Architectural style in north-western Iran – This article contains many monuments pre dating the Azerbaijani ethnos, thus, the current name is irrelevant. Actually, this article refers to the architectural style in north-western Iran, not an architectural style in relation with one ethnic group. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Great Work → Great Work (Hermeticism) – This is a derived term from the much older and more notable use of "Great Work" in alchemy, currently on the page Magnum opus (alchemy). This should not receive pride of place above that page; Great Work should either hold the alchemy term or a disambiguation page. Argument: Magnum opus has high-quality citations, and unity of content. This page is split across three different meanings, focusing on one, and the majority of its content is quotes from primary sources. PDVk (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – UK Music Charts → ? – ​Per WP:NCCAPS, unnecessary capitalization should be avoided. This is not a list of charts produced by any individual company, so it could be retitled "List of British record charts", or just "British record charts" or "British music charts". I'm not sure which of these I would prefer. Similar articles are enumerated in Template:Record Charts. Jc86035 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ned Zelić → Ned Zelic – One more. Retired Australian footballer. Incorrect use of the letter "ć". Ned is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the English alphabet. Simione001 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Milan Ivanović → Milan Ivanovic – Australian association football retired player, now coach. Incorrect use of the letter "ć". Milan is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the English alphabet. Simione001 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Republican Party of Puerto Rico (1903) → Republican Party of Puerto Rico – This is a somewhat complicated situation. From 1899 to 1924, Puerto Rico had a local "Republican Party" unaffiliated with the national U.S. Republican Party. The article covering both this historical party and the chronologically overlapping branch of the national U.S. Republican Party (which was established in 1903 and still exists) was recently split into two articles, one on the defunct party, one on the current party. Pageviews are useless because up until a few days ago there was a single page for both of them. However, I propose that the clear primary target between these two would have to be the nationally affiliated party that will soon celebrate 120 years of continuous operation, and which participated in the most recent Republican primary race. I would therefore move this page to the base page name, quashing the disambiguation page that is now there. The defunct party is already linked in the hatnote. bd2412 T 13:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  20:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Alisson (footballer, born 1992) → Alisson Becker – I think this is better than the current name with a long disambiguation (makes reach to article more difficult and complex), "Alisson Becker" is unique and easily identify, he use this name in his Social media accounts, and official Liverpool FC website use this name, many newspapers and many references use this name also. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Proof-of-work system → Proof of work – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:NOUN. First of all, for consistency we should ensure that all "Proof of X" articles are titled in a similar way unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. We basically have three alternatives: a) "Proof of X", b) "Proof-of-X", and c) "Proof-of-X system". c) is unnecessary and overprecise as none of these terms are realistically ambiguous, nor would "system" necessarily be a useful disambiguator even if they were. Per the rules of grammar, the correct way to spell a multi-word phrase when used as a noun is generally without a hyphen, and as an adjective, with a hyphen. Indeed, most reliable sources agree with this usage. As article titles should be nouns as long as it is convenient to do so, we should move all of them to the form a). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

June 1, 2019

  • (Discuss) – List of NJPW pay-per-view events → List of Major NJPW Events – NJPW itself doesn't primarily release or publish its events on a traditional PPV format. Historically (before NJPW World was launched), live specials were mainly broadcast on TV through channels like TV Asahi. The events are only broadcast as Pay-Per-View events internationally. MarcoTalin12 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:British hills → Template:British and Irish P600 mountains – this template was originally the 95 P600 mountains in Britain (ex. North of Ireland), and should have been more correctly labelled "British P600 mountains" (note: a hill over 600 m is regarded as a mountain per here). It is important to state the classification (e.g. P600), to clarify this template is not WP:OR, and does follow an objective classification of mountains (e.g. the template is not somebody's random selection of mountains). In addition, I have now added the additional 25 Ireland P600s (North and South), so that the template has the full 120 P600s that are recognised in the British Isles; thus this template should be called British and Irish P600 mountains. Britishfinance (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Case Western Reserve Spartans → Case Western Spartans – Requested move in order to align the main article with all of the associated categories for athletics at Case Western Reserve University. Note that sports media outlets drop "Reserve" from their naming convention when it comes to sports to shorten the name (which is standard practice for Wikipedia articles to follow suit), so this is a scenario where the article should be moved, not the categories. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tell es-Sultan → Tel Jericho – I wish to change the title of this article to "Tel Jericho". I suppose "Tell es-Sultan" is favorable for many, but I want to first try to achieve a consensus for simply "Tel Jericho": #"Tell es-Sultan" is a local name, given by people who probably didn't know this is the ancient site of Jericho. People don't really care about the "Mound of the ruler", they care about Ancient Jericho. Calling it "Tel Jericho" is more straight forward. #The name itself is a transliterated name from Arabic, but it can be written in many variants (Tel a-Sultan, Tall es-Sultan, Tell al-Sultan) and there is no real correct way. I find it a bit confusing, for English and non-English speakers alike. "Jericho" on the other hand is a universal way of translating both Hebrew Yeriho and Arabic Ariha. #A search I made in Google has revealed that the name "Tell es-Sultan" yields more results than "Tel Jericho", but from my own personal experience, academic sources rarely use the term "Tell es-Sultan" or its variants, and commonly just call it "Jericho". Also, using a Wikipedia page-view analysis, we can see that the article about "Jericho" an average of 1,400 views a day while the article about "Tell es-Sultan" receives only 52 views on daily avarage, which is a shame. I don't think the modern city of Jericho is known for more than date palms. The reason it is a tourist attraction globally is because of Ancient Jericho, located on Tel Jericho. #A similar thing was done with Tel Megiddo and "Tell al-Mutesellim", Tel Hazor and "Tell el-Qedah", Assur and "Qal'at Sherqat", Ur and "Tell el-Muqayyar" *This is NOT a POV motivated move, with the aim of removing the Arab name of a Palestinian place. I am well aware that UNESCO has chosen this name to represent the site, but in spite of this, 50 views a day for one of the most significant sites for humanity is heartbreaking. It bothered me the most when I saw that the article Walls of Jericho gets almost three times more daily views than the actual article about ancient Jericho! (See here) Please respond with !Support or !Oppose only with relation to the name "Tel Jericho". Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
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) – Robert Collymore → ? – Per WP:TITLE, I am proposing that this article be renamed to Bob Collymore, which evidently is what he is much more known by than Robert. Mr. Collymore goes by Bob on his public social media accounts, and is listed as Bob Collymore on his official profile on Safaricom ([44]). From a search engine perspective, "Bob Collymore" gets about 202,000 hits, while "Robert Collymore" gets slightly less than 4,400. As there is currently already a redirect at Bob Collymore, I am proposing that the article be relocated there and this page turned into a redirect to that page. Comments welcome. CThomas3 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bihari Mal → Bharmal – This was actually the original name for the page before it was moved by User:Helena Bx a couple of years ago.[49] Her stated reason for the move was that sources such as the Ain-i-Akbari and Jahangirnama refer to him as "Bihari Mal". However, like many primary sources, these examples are pretty susceptible to biases and inaccuracies, including with names (e.g. referring to the Nizam Shah dynasty as Nizam-al-Mulk)[50]. Also note that according to Google Ngram, the use of "Bharmal" in academic sources greatly exceeds that of "Bihari Mal."[51] Alivardi (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Eurobond → ? – As a result of the previous stalemate, we are still in a completely unacceptable situation which blatantly violates WP:PLURAL. Maybe it's a bit too much to ask people to simultaneously determine the primary topic and find appropriate titles for the non-primary topic(s). So let's conduct the RM in two stages: first determine the primary topic of "Eurobond", then figure out the titles afterwards. The options are: *Option A. Eurodollar bonds (i.e. the article currently at Eurobond) is the primary topic of "Eurobond". *Option B. There is no primary topic of "Eurobond", so disambiguate. *Option C. Eurozone-issued bonds (i.e. the article currently at Eurobonds) is the primary topic of "Eurobond". Note that this presupposes the premise that "Eurobond" and "Eurobonds" must necessarily have the same primary topic; do speak up if you disagree. My ranked choices would be B > A > C, as I think Eurodollar bonds are a somewhat but not overwhelmingly more prominent topic. @UnitedStatesian and Amakuru: Pinging past participants. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 08:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983) → Cameron Smith – Since this was moved without broad discussion, i thought i would start it. This Cameron Smith is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by guideline 1 - pageviews higher in every way except for previous one off tournament wins for the golfer which is in part due to golf receiving a wider coverage base then rugby league (i can't get the pageviews link to work in this discussion, so i've linked it in the above unofficial move discussion. Guideline 2 - "long term significance" is demonstrated by him having a longer, more highly regarded career then any of the other athletes or people named "Cameron Smith". He's been the captain of his team since 2006, was the captain of his state and country. For people unfamiliar with Australian sports or rugby league he has been awarded the "MVP" of the league twice and international "MVP" and is the only player to kick 1,000 goals and highest point scorer in his sports league National Rugby League, which is the dominant sports league for the sport. As clear as his templates make his dominance in the sport visible. Compare that too Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) who has just started his career, who inspired this move. There's no comparison and considering the page views and long term significance to the sport of rugby league this should be the primary topic. A hatnote would fit the other league player and the golfer/American football player. GuzzyG (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash → 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash – Per WP:PRECISE. The Piper PA-46 is a commonplace general aviation aircraft that is typically involved in a significant number of fatal accidents in any given year, most of which do not meet accepted community guidelines for notability. The present title does not convey adequate information to tell the reader which PA-46 crash is discussed. The proposed title complies with community guidelines and was broadly endorsed during discussion of the previous proposal to move the page to "2019 Emiliano Sala air accident." Carguychris (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ironclad warship → Ironclad – I think warship is redundant here. I can't think of a really accurate metric for deciding which of "ironclad" and "ironclad warship" is more common, but out of six books used as sources in the article that contain the word, five use just "ironclad" and only one uses "ironclad warship". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – National Democratic Alliance (India) → National Democratic Alliance – The Indian National Democratic Alliance is clearly the primary topic. It receives thousands of page views every day, compared to the single digit or low double digit page views of the other topics. There has been a bump in page views over the past couple of months due to Indian elections, but the page view numbers were in thousands even before the elections began. It is extensively linked in Wikipedia, more than the rest of the others combined. Web search results mostly return pages about the Indian alliance, while pages about other alliances are few and far between. —Gazoth (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Liberty (goddess) → Personification of Liberty – Correct title for the subject. The current one is hopelessly confusing as we have Libertas for the actual goddess of Liberty (Roman). Nobody actually regards the personification covered in this article as a "goddess". To join several other "Personification of..." articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Scott Tucker (racing driver) → Scott Alan Tucker – Full name is a more appropriate disambiguation, given the complexities of his two most well-known categories (racing driver and the target of the largest FTC judgment in history). While it would be inappropriate to change the category to 'criminal' or otherwise, it also seems inappropriate to disambiguate him by his hobby of racing, especially given the way that hobby was funded and that he is no longer most well known for his racing. From [Trends] we can see that his search popularity while racing (final race in 2014) was matched by searches around the FTC fine (2016) and dwarfed by them around the federal indictment for TILA (2018). Proposing the use of his full name, Scott Alan Tucker, as an appropriate, neutral, and unambiguous title. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fairfax Media → John Fairfax Holdings – The article is largely about the historical John Fairfax Holdings rather than Nine Publishing. Nine Publishing is more of a successor to Fairfax subsidiary Australian Metro Publishing, excluding other subsidiaries such as Australian Community Media and Stuff, which Nine has signaled it is intending to sell. The company was know as John Fairfax Holdings for longer than it was known as Fairfax Media and the retrospective article should be known as such. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bar and Bat Mitzvah → Bar and Bat mitzvah – The question of the correct capitalization has been raised three times already on this talkpage. Since the last time, over half a year ago, capitalization in the article has been standardized, in accordance with my reply that based on the MoS the capital "M" should be a small "m". I now propose to move the page accordingly. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart) → Vesperae solennes de Dominica – * WP:Disambiguation says "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." There is not more than one existing article where this title might lead, so disambiguation is not necessary. * Apparently there are works called Vesperae solennes de Dominica by Joseph Michel and Johann Valentin Rathgeber, but these are seemingly not even notable enough to get a mention in the composers' articles, let alone have their own. WP:ATDIS says "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." Mozart's work is undoubtedly the primary topic, and no other policies apply in this case. * Even Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation says "A non-generic article title for an article on a composition that is unique to a composer is only disambiguated by composer's name or composition type when such disambiguation is needed" (my emphasis). As already stated, no disambiguation is needed. Opera hat (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2019 (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

The current Wikipedia time is:
13:39, Saturday, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=900463619"