Open main menu

Wikipedia:Requested moves

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)

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 {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new page title | reason = reason for move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

  • Evine → ShopHQ (move) – network entity has changed their on-air branding as of this morning. Nate (chatter) 16:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    We don't update immediately to announced new names. We first need to see independent sources taking up the change. Dicklyon (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    And I changed to "discuss = no" as there's no point in opening an RM discussion on it this early. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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 August 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:

{{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.}}

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 August 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:05, 21 August 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 August 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:05, 21 August 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 August 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2019‎ (UTC)

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.
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 August 2019

– why Example (talk) 19:05, 21 August 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 August 2019

– why Example (talk) 19:05, 21 August 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.


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

August 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)National Paediatric HospitalNew children's hospital (Dublin) – This future children's hospital is currently under construction in Dublin, Ireland. It remains unnamed as of 2019 and is not called the "National Paediatric Hospital", either officially or in common parlance. The name "Phoenix Children's Hospital Ireland" had previously been announced in 2017, but this was withdrawn in 2018 due to a legal dispute. Pending announcement of the revised permanent name for this hospital, the only way by which it is referred in official documents is "the new children's hospital", written thus, without capital letters (see the official website. Note that the body responsible for delivering the project is called the "National Paediatric Hospital Development Board", but this name has not been applied to the hospital itself. Kwekubo (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sovereignty Council (2019)Sovereignty Council (Sudan) – There already exists an independent article Sovereignty Council (Iraq), but this article (about Sovereignty Councils in Sudan, especially the new one) does not concern Iraq; so a year alone is not enough to disambiguate the topic. This article includes a brief description of earlier Sovereignty Councils in Sudan as background, so it's not only concerned with 2019. Moreover, if the 2019 Sudanese transition to democracy goes more or less as planned in the Draft Constitutional Declaration, then it will last 39 months, so it will be from 2019 to 2022, forcing future name changes in 2020, 2021, and 2022 if we're to avoid crystalballing; but having an unstable article title is disruptive, and seems to be unnecessary. Technical help: The original title was Sovereignty Council (Sudan), so tech help in reverting the redirect/name swamp will be needed if the requested move is accepted. Boud (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)N.E.R.DN.E.R.D. – per MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM. The proposed name was the declared and unopposed result of the last RM for this article, but someone moved it again without discussion a couple of weeks later. Skimming the titles of the sources cited in the article, it is clear that the terminal punctuation is often included in independent sources – in fact, the most common form among the titles of the 70 cited sources appears to be "N.E.R.D." (with the terminating dot). Omitting it is a strange promotional styling that does not conform to the ordinary English styling convention for an abbreviation of this sort. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Portal:Law of England and WalesPortal:English law – The proposed name aligns the portal with that of its article English law. NOTE TO CLOSER: If the Portal is moved, please ensure the move is done by someone with the appropriate permissions to move all of the subpages without leaving redirects, and then ensure all redlinks in the portal are fixed; please ping me if you need help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 20 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)
  • (Discuss)Ape (1976 film)A*P*E – The title is an acronym, styled A*P*E in on-screen credits, which can be viewed here. The closest comparison would be to MASH (film) and M*A*S*H (TV series), with the film's on-screen credits depicted without asterisks and the TV series' credits depicted with asterisks. Since the Ape (disambiguation)#Films page lists two additional films titled "Ape" as well as two films titled "The Ape", all of which use parenthetical qualifiers indicating the years of distribution, I would not oppose the forms A*P*E (film) or even A*P*E (1976 film) if consensus were to skew toward the depiction of the main header with a qualifier. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 01:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

August 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)Brookfield Office PropertiesBrookfield Properties – I work in Branding & Communications at Brookfield Asset Management on behalf of Brookfield Properties. I am requesting that the name of this page be moved to "Brookfield Properties". Brookfield Properties has been the actual, functional name of the company since 2017. Please refer to the corporate website ( to confirm this is the self-declared name. In addition, "Brookfield Properties" is the name media outlets overwhelmingly and currently use to refer to the organization. As per a Google News search, "Brookfield Properties" yields 10,900 hits, while searching for "Brookfield Office Properties" yields only 2,330. Finally, please note that "Brookfield Office Properties" still exists as a legal entity for Preferred Stock Dividend reasons, but it has not been the functional name of the company for some time. Dvruthven (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Moscow–Saint Petersburg motorwayM11 motorway (Russia) – The M11 motorway (Russia) has a simpler name than Moscow-Saint Petersburg motorway as it is not composed of many characters and does not use a large dash. In addition, the motorway is not referred to by sources in the article as the Moscow-Saint Petersburg motorway, but instead, is referred to the M11 motorway, or the M11 expressway. Josephua (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nicolae CebanNicolai Ceban – His usual name is Nicolai not Nicolae (romanian). He was competing at the Olympics only under Nicolai Ceban and was flag-bearer in Rio 2016 as Nicolai (see sources of the page). Arorae (talk) 09:34, 19 August 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)
  • (Discuss)NGHTCRWLRS → ? – Revisiting these discussions from earlier this year. An RM for the band failed to find consensus on using sentence-case while a separate RM for the album failed to find consensus on using all-caps. It makes little difference to me which way we swing on this, but clearly it makes no sense for the band and their self-titled album to use different capitalisations. FWIW, a web search generally seems to favour the use of all-caps, while Amazon and iTunes both use sentence-case. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)B*A*P*SB.A.P.S – I believe the title should have periods instead of asterisks. Asterisks are not used on the poster, and "B.A.P.S" is used in publications during the film's theatrical release (examples: 12345). I do see some publications use the asterisks version, like 1 and 2, but they are more recent and could be influenced by this Wikipedia title. Thank you in advance for any comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)OverDrive (radio show)OverDrive (TSN) – Since this is both a radio show and a television show, it should be disambiguated as "TSN" (the network that carries it in both the radio and television forms) rather than as "radio show". It should also be noted that "TSN" was the article's original title for this very reason, but it was moved in 2017 with no evidence of any discussion to support that. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GomutraCow urine – Just about every reference uses "cow urine". There are also a few sentences about its usage in Nigeria where it's not known as "Gomutra". (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Blogg (surname)Blogg – surname page to replace redirect to single name-holder: no evidence that Henry is of Shakespeare-like significance PamD 09:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cloninger (surname)Cloninger – surname page to replace redirect to single name-holder: no evidence that C. Robert is of Shakespeare-like significance PamD 09:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Politics of the BellyPolitics of the belly – The article was moved from Politics of the belly to Politics of the Belly in 2013, with the reason "Proper noun". It is, however, not a proper noun. English translations of two books by Jean-Francois Bayart, the author credited with popularising the term, both use lowercase: the second edition of The State in Africa, as seen here, and Global Subjects, as seen here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Austin Peay Governors men's basketballAustin Peay Governors basketball – Austin Peay never stopped referring to their women's team as Lady Govs nor their men's team as Governors (check both programs' 2018–19 media guides), despite what some editors from spring 2017 say. It's been long-standing WP:CBBALL consensus to name the men's and women's programs without the specific gender identifier in instances such as this, where it's obvious to begin with. All categories still follow proper naming conventions, thus this original move was an erroneous one-off. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

August 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)Sinai (disambiguation)Sinai – No primary topic. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY: (1) Incoming links shows Sinai Peninsula with ~3000, Mount Sinai with ~1000 and Biblical Mount Sinai with ~700; (2) Pageviews shows Peninsula with 23k, Mount with 29k and Biblical Mount with 19k; (3) Google Ngams shows Mount consistently more popular than Peninsula [2] and a plain search for “Sinai” in Googlebooks shows a real mix. In summary, Sinai in religion-based articles means the mountain, Sinai in geography-based articles means the peninsula; as an aside, the peninsula was previously known as the “Peninsula of Mount Sinai”. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mount SinaiMount Moses – Wikipedia should not be implying a view on whether Mount Moses is correctly named “Mount Sinai”. The location of Mount Sinai is one of the most disputed topics in Biblical Geography (e.g. “...far more difficult than any other problem of Palestinian Biblical Topography”[3]; “Few OT geographical questions have been more vigorously debated than the location of Mt. Sinai”[4]; “...a topic of serious disagreement among scholars”[5]). Although Christian tradition places Sinai at Mount Moses, we deal appropriately with an equivalent issue at Calvary. Also Google maps calls it Jebel Musa (Mount Moses). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DooghAyranWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; Ayran is the more common and primary name for the product. There was never a consensus to merge it under "Doogh". It was done so arbitrarily without discussion. Here another user taking an older discussion as reference mentioned that is was meant to be merged under Ayran. Here a consensus was reached to merge it under Ayran, and not the other way around. Akocsg (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)Ginan (star)Epsilon Crucis – The titles of several articles about stars in the constellation Crux were recently moved from being titled with their Bayer designations to being titled with proper names. The moves were made (on 25 April 2019) as reverts of undiscussed moves with the rationale that the proper names were now approved by the IAU. This basis was somewhat misleading: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Crucis were renamed in 2006, and for 13 years nobody had a problem; Delta Crucis had never been called Imai or Imai (star), although it was titled Decrux until 2009; and Epsilon Crucis had never been named Ginan or Ginan (star) (originally titled Juxta Crucem!). In any case, now is a good time to have a discussion. I have included all five star articles that were renamed, hopefully that doesn't become too confusing. Based on WP:TITLE, the title of the article should reflect the most recognisable and commonly-used name for the subject of the article. I'm not in the southern hemisphere so clearly not the best judge, but I would contend that the most recognisable names for Epsilon and Delta are certainly not the proper names, and it is arguable whether the proper names for Alpha, Beta, and Gamma are really the most recognisable and widely-used. I would propose that all five be moved back to their Bayer designations. Lithopsian (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 14:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DamotKingdom of Damot – There seems to be a precedence to name medieval Ethiopian kingdoms via the adjective - noun format. Also many kingdoms that existed during the same time period follow this naming format. Take for example the Zagwe dynasty. But my main reason for moving is for disambiguation purposes because the current title is confusing, There are many other locations called Damot which have nothing to do with its currently professed location at the Ethiopian rift. For example Damit Gale is much further west. Similarly there is a locality called "Damot" in the Wardhere zone in Ethiopia, much further east. There is also a sub-province with a similar name. As such, the term Damot is currently attributed to three ethnic groups as well as split between two sub-clans of one of those ethnic groups. TLDR; there are many places in Ethiopia called Damot. Furthmore, when looking at reliable sources such as An ethiopian journal, abc CLIO, Otto Harrassowitz etc. (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

August 15, 2019

  • (Discuss)DegarMontagnard (Vietnam) – This is the least problematic name for this article. Most importantly, it is the most common both among the group themselves (self-identification) and is the most prominent term in English. See below for details. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

August 14, 2019

  • (Discuss)TranscaucasiaSouth Caucasus – The above discussion is from 3 years ago, and I think that the consensus has changed since then. As someone familiar on a professional level with the region, "Transcaucasia" or (more accurately) "Transcaucasus" is a dated term that has fallen out of favour in the post-Soviet era. It is referred to almost exclusively as "South Caucasus" in modern academic literature, something Ngram clearly shows. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Rook (miniseries)The Rook (TV series) – Besides The Ringer mention of it being a miniseries [[10]], I can't find many reliable sources talking about that, nor it has been officially confirmed that it's a miniseries. At the very least, it should be moved until the season ends and there is a confirmation in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GoldustDustin Rhodes – Widely regarded today in AEW. The title was changed to Goldust in '13 when he teamed up with Cody Rhodes/Stardust. Since, he didn't appear much in the main roster and now he is probably in the upper midcard level or possibly even a legend of AEW, once again teaming with Cody. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Five Points (TV series)Five Points (web series) – Considering that the episodes of this run well less than the standard 22–30 minutes, and that it is released on Facebook Watch, I think disambiguating this with "web series" over "TV series" would be more accurate disambiguation. Gauging support for the proposal... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2019 Venezuelan uprising2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt – As a continuous supporter of the current title and as an user that has participated in the three consecutive RM proposals (only to reach "no consensus"), I would like to propose a quick fix hoping to reach a compromise with the users that oppose "uprising". The idea of changing "uprising" to "uprising attempt" was first raised by users that opposed the current title during the first RM, but the idea has been brought back and put aside in all three previous RMs. Indeed, in the last RM some of the arguments to oppose "uprising" were that (1) "uprising" alone is no longer used by current new sources, it is always used with some adjective "attempt, military, attempted, failed, unachieved, call etc." (and that merits a change, see WP:NAMECHANGES) and (2) that "uprising" suggested a successful rebellion, which it is not. Both of these two can be solved by adding "attempt" to the title. I would suggest that we put aside other title options and focus on the addition of the adjective. Please do not oppose just because you do not approve "uprising" altogether. If you think an additional adjective (aside from attempt) should also be added please support and state which other addition should be considered. MaoGo (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shaio (TransMilenio)Av. Suba Calle 116 (TransMilenio) – station renamed"1". 21:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Mass killings under communist regimesMass killings under Communist regimes – I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem, but I have accepted the previous result and this one is mainly based on consistency since the Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes page is capitalised. I would support this move based on WP:COMMON NAME. I don't know which one is more common; I believe when it isn't capitalised it's only because communism is considered a noun, but it's also just as often capitalised both to distinquish it from communism and because the word Communism is used to refer to the Communist Party-state rule rather than communism. Either way, please vote on talk pages whether you want both of them to be capitalised or not. Thank you.-- (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Stabbing as a terrorist tacticStabbing attack – It's a shorter and less cumbersome name for the topic. As you can notice, the article refers to it as a "stabbing attack" in its lead and list. Take a note that the similarly named article "Vehicle ramming as a terrorism tactic" was renamed to "Vehicle-ramming attack" back in 2016. Russian Rocky (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Docker (disambiguation)Docker – This is primarily a question of whether or not there exists a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Docker". Currently "Docker" is a redirect pointing to the article "Stevedore". My proposal is to move "Docker (disambiguation)" to "Docker" since no article meet both suggested points for consideration in the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at the three articles Docker (software), Millwall F.C. and Stevedore, the article "Stevedore" may have "enduring notability" but accounts for only a little more than 15% of the page views of the almost 5.9 million views since 1 Juli 2015 (verify this here), and less than 14% of their collective incoming intrawiki links. Both numbers are far from the 50% usually required for a primary topic. "stevedore" therefore fails the point regarding "use" suggested in the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. None of the three articles meet both suggested points in the guideline and according to the guideline "If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". There is no obvious reason why the guideline to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should not be applied to this case, or why not both suggested points in the guideline be taken into consideration. Bensin (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Starship (rocket and spacecraft)Starship (spacecraft) – This spacecraft is not a launch vehicle as the term rocket usually implies. It is strictly a spacecraft. A similar comparison would be the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V rocket. I have found no evidence of plans to launch the Starship into space without being attached to a launch vehicle. Rather, it is strictly intended to operate as a 2nd stage. What they do to test it in the prototype stage is irrelevant. And, while it is true that this spacecraft obtains thrust from rocket engines, this is true of every spacecraft, and labeling it as both a rocket and spacecraft is redundant at best. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)H.264/MPEG-4 AVCH.264 – WP does not put alternative names/titles, after a slash or other punctuation, into the article title. Such other terms are created as redirects instead. This article should be at the most common name for the subject, which is H.264. The MPEG-4 AVC string isn't even really a name, anyway, but an abbreviation of one. (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem HerzenQueen of the Night aria – The article's second paragraph describes it as "one of the most famous of all opera arias" — it is instantly identifiable as part of general cultural perception and, in the English-speaking world, referenced as "Queen of the Night aria", or simply "Queen of the Night", rather than as the lengthy and virtually unrecognizable to English speakers, "Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen". Another option, if preferred by consensus and / or WP:WikiProject Opera could be Queen of the Night (aria), thus enabling, under appropriate circumstances, the aria's name to be piped as simply Queen of the Night (aria)|Queen of the Night. In fact, a good argument might be made that this aria's English name, "Queen of the Night", can claim to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Queen of the Night disambiguation page where the origin of every entry's English name can be said to stem in one way or another from this aria's English name. The topic was previously raised (at 09:06, 19 October 2010, above), but never submitted to a vote. Two other arias from The Magic Flute, "Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön" and the Queen of the Night's other aria, "O zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn", have Wikipedia articles under their German titles, but neither one has the instant iconic recognizability of this aria nor an instantly recognizable English-language title. A few other German arias, such as "Adele's Laughing Song" or "Song to the Evening Star" are also listed under their English titles as is The Magic Flute opera, itself. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 19:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Puerto Ricans in the United StatesStateside Puerto Ricans – I reverted an edit by Llakew18. They recently moved page "Puerto Ricans in the United States" to "Stateside Puerto Ricans (Puerto Ricans in the United States)" with the reasoning Original title make Puerto Ricans look like foreign immigrants which they are not. They Stateside Puerto Ricans are ethnic Puerto Ricans living in the mainland and non-mainland states (e.g. Hawaii) of the U.S. I agree, but think that such a bold move needs discussion. epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1000 (number)1000 – Given the preponderance of the decimal numbering system throughout human history (chiefly because we have ten fingers), the number 1000 should be considered the primary topic for title "1000". In addition, a dab page should be created for usages of "1000" that are not about the number itself; they are currently conflated with discussion of the number in this article. (maybe in a later proposal)JFG talk 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


See also