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.

Contents

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

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

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

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

Do not put more than one open move request on the same 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 25 May 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.

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 25 May 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:06, 25 May 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 25 May 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:06, 25 May 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 25 May 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:06, 25 May 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 25 May 2019

– why Example (talk) 20:06, 25 May 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 25 May 2019

– why Example (talk) 20:06, 25 May 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 up to three times.

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

May 25, 2019

  • (Discuss)TFue Turner TenneyTfue – It is absolutely incorrect to use the current article title. An argument could be made for "Turner Tenney" but I think he is overwhelmingly known as Tfue (no capital 'f' either). --SVTCobra (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CryptomonadCryptophyte – 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)
  • (Discuss)Template:Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean political partiesTemplate:Assyrian political parties – Historically, this type of move was controversial. However, compromises like this- where templates give three different names for the same group- honestly just don't make sense anymore. The title of the navbox is Assyrian political parties it's in the categorized under Category:Assyrian political parties, and the corresponding general template is named {{Assyrian people footer}}. It's time for this one to get a rename so everything is finally uniform. –MJLTalk 01:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 24, 2019

  • (Discuss)Fossil fuel phase-outPhasing 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)
  • (Discuss)Saint Peter → ?WP:NPOV states that we should take a neutral point of view, and unfortunately "Saint Peter" is an example of pro-Catholic bias on Wikipedia. Similarly, MOS:SAINTS states that the word "Saint" shouldn't be included in the name of an individual considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be a saint. Accordingly, (also per suggestions above) a new move request is being made where a few options are necessary: those are "Peter the Apostle," "Simon Peter," "Peter," or "oppose moving the page." To ensure a fair system, the numbers can be assigned as follows: "Peter the Apostle — 1," "Simon Peter — 2," "Peter — 3," and "oppose — 4." Then, when you vote, you can add your highest preference first, followed by second highest, third highest, and then last, like this: 1, 2, 3, 4. My "vote" is 1, 2, 3, 4. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23, 2019

  • (Discuss)Case Western Reserve SpartansCase 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)
  • (Discuss)Regina CoeliRegina Caeli – This is the spelling that (apart from being correct Latin) is used in all recent official liturgical texts of the Catholic Church, as seen, for instance, in the image reproduced in the article. Past objections to this correction, based on out-of-date publications, are given above. The article by Hugh Henry in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia was cited for "Coeli", but the far more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia has "Caeli", and even the old Catholic Encyclopedia also had an article by the better known scholar Herbert Thurston using the "ae" spelling. The Raccolta (first published in 1807) was also cited above in support of "Coeli", but the edition cited was of an unspecified pre-1923 date. Wikisource only gives nineteenth-century editions of the Raccolta, the last edition of which (and we don't know which spelling it used) was in 1950. The Raccolta has since been replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which has "Regina caeli". The entire text of the fourth edition of this Enchiridion is on the Internet. The spelling "caeli" is not a recent fad: it is found in 15th-century Trent manuscripts. There is no doubt that "caelum" is the correct Latin word: see PHI Latin texts, where searching for "coelum" produces no results. The objection raised above that in medieval times (when the anthem was composed) "coelum" was the (only) spelling is quite unsubstantiated. Is it instead possible that the "coelum" spelling arose instead in post-medieval times, when Greek became better known in the West and the Latin word for "sky"/"heaven" was associated with the Greek word κοῖλος ("hollow")? "Regina caeli" is also the spelling used in today's scholarly works such as the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the American Institute of Musicology Bealtainemí (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 13:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Trump administration family separation policyZero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry – President Trump announced and executed a Policy that he called the Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry. Newspapers, news programs, pundits, and radio stations referred to it as Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. The name of this Wikipedia article is not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions WP:RM#CM as this is not the title of the policy, nor the common used term for it, but rather a complaint about the policy put forth by opinion writers and partisans. It would be the same thing to title the Wiki on Football as "The Head Injury Sport". The fact that a large amount of partisan media and politicians used this term often, still does not change the fact that we know the name of the policy, we have absolute proof of its title, and it has been used in reliable sources. Even the New York Times, which typically has printed negative articles about the Trump administration have referred to the policy by Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy, rather than the pejorative title used for this wiki. The official announcement of the Policy, contained on the Department of Justice page, did not mention the term "Family Separation" at all. It correctly titled the Policy "the Zero Tolerance Policy For Criminal Illegal Entry" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry. The UCLA journal of Education and Information studies published a paper hyper-critical of the Zero Tolerance policy, yet they referred to it by its correct name. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/99f98163 The Human rights review in 2019 published a paper, again critical of the policy yet correctly naming it https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-019-0547-5 Politifact also consistently refers to the Policy by its correct name "Zero Tolerance Policy" https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/ . The fact is that there is no "Family Separation Policy" and there never has been. Mis-naming this Wikipedia article to a criticism is simply not accurate. The criticisms can be handled in the text, but since we know the true title of the policy, and since it is the commonnly used name in reliable sources, and since the current name is not the title or the nickname for any policy at all, this Wikipedia article should be renamed. Doniboy71 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Qara KhitaiWestern Liao – Considering the official name of this regime was "Great Liao", I believe it is more accurate to refer to it as "Western Liao". The term "Qara Khitai" was not used by the rulers to refer to their regime, but is instead a term of foreign origins. Furthermore, since the rulers and the regime itself were Sinicized, accepted Chinese traditions, adopted Chinese titles and claimed continuity from the previous Liao dynasty, among other things, using the term "Western Liao" to refer to this regime (as is the case for Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese historians) is more accurate. This is not Sinocentrism, considering the official name of the regime was "Great Liao" and was located to the west of the original Liao dynasty which also used the official name "Great Liao". The name "Western Liao" can therefore better reflect the historical connection between the two regimes as well as their geographical location in relation to each other, as opposed to "Qara Khitai" which neither reflect the official name of the regime nor was it used by the rulers themselves. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)Armada de MoluccaMagellan's circumnavigation – Consistent with how RS most frequently refer to the voyage (based on a survey of titles cited in a recent authoritative work on the topic - Bergreen 2003). Satisfies the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability, naturalness and precision much more than the current title. See above for more detailed reasoning, and discussion of a few other available options. Colin M (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Granger Hall (basketball)Granger Hall – This article was moved in July 2013 to "make way for disambiguation" yet "Granger Hall" was never made into a disambiguation. Requesting to have this moved back, as there is zero reason for a redirect. SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)York 9 FCYork9 FC – The club is referred to as York9 FC (without the space) by virtually all reliable news sources, the league's own website, and all of the club's social media accounts. In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, the page name should be moved to reflect this. TrailBlzr (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eternal Flame (song)Eternal Flame – I see there was a previous RM on this topic in 2012, and ordinarily I would agree with the sentiments of the opposers there. For example Red Meat (comic strip), which has been moved since 2012, is far better redirecting to a dab page than the somewhat obscure comic strip. In this case, however, I think the song (number one in multiple countries and still regarded as a classic, thirty years on) is arguably on a par with the eternal flame concept in significance. It therefore seems like this really is a reasonable candidate for WP:DIFFCAPS. Page-views-wise, the song seems to enjoy a fairly consistent lead over all other topics combined too, so is probably the most sought-after topic and what is most commonly referred to when people talk of this.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (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)
  • (Discuss)Kamarupi Prakrit → ?What should be the primary name of this article? All other plausible names can be redirects. The following names have been proposed: :A. Kamarupi Prakrit. :B. Proto-Kamarupa language. :C. Old Kamrupi language. :D. Old Kamarupi dialect :E. Kamrupi language. :F. Kamrupi Apabhramsa. Please specify your first choice, and rank other choices, in the Survey section. Threaded discussion may be in the Threaded Discussion section. Due to the large number of possible names, we may request a snowball closure to exclude some of the choices and restart the RFC for the remaining choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. bd2412 T 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ironclad warshipIronclad – 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)
  • (Discuss)AmphiprioninaeClownfish – Move per WP:COMMONNAME. According to this google trends page Clownfish gets almost 100 times more searches than the current title. The case is similar for google search results with clownfish yielding 14 100 000 results (admittedly a not insignificant amount being from the skype application) while amphiprioninae only giving 105 000 results. Trialpears (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 09:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (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)

May 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)The Cricket In Times Square (TV special)The Cricket in Times Square (TV special)The Cricket in Times Square, the novel this was based on, also has a separate article — but the only difference between these two titles is the capitalization of the filler article "in", which means that anybody looking for either of these topics is going to have a 50-50 chance of ending up in the wrong place. You create a new article about a topic with the same name as another article by using disambiguation, not by breaking standard capitalization rules to create a redlink that offers no way to actually distinguish which topic is which. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rule the World (Take That single)Rule the World (Take That song) – This is a bit of a mess now. The proposed new title was the original name for this article. It was then moved to Rule the World (song) as there were no other notable songs with that title. But now there is, namely Rule the World (2 Chainz song). Editor Nice4What decided that a disambiguator was required again, but found that they couldn't move the Take That song back to the original title because of the redirect, so they created this "placeholder" article title instead, which doesn't match the standard Wikipedia naming convention. The Take That song is far better known in the UK and Europe, but the 2 Chainz song is probably the better known of the two in the US. So I propose moving the Take That song back to its original disambiguation title, and leaving Rule the World (Take That single) as a redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)War hawkHawk (foreign policy) – Common modern and dictionary usage, per WP:COMMONNAME. Although the term first appeared as "war hawk" in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison in 1798, as this source indicates, the terms "hawk" and "dove" (no "war") became common in foreign policy discourse in the 1960s. Cumulatively there are far more sources that use the term "hawk" in this context than those that use the term "war hawk." R2 (bleep) 17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)In God We TrustIn God we trust – The official national motto of the United States is "In God we trust", according to the cited law. There's no reason to over-capitalize here. Looks like it was right during 2012–2016, but then got flipped in a thinly-attended discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)Differential geometry of curvesDifferentiable curve – The proposed title, which redirects already here, is a much simpler description of the expected content. Moreover, as a curve is, by definition, a geometric object, I cannot imagine anything that belongs to one title and not to the second one D.Lazard (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:52, 20 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)

May 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)A/J JacksonA. J. JacksonMOS:TM / WP:TITLETM / MOS:SPACEINITS. The unusual styling with the slash is not followed consistently in independent sources. Rockwired used "A.J." and several other sources cited in the article have used "AJ". With the sources being inconsistent, the ordinary English formatting as generally used on Wikipedia should apply. The article was previously at "AJ Jackson" until an undiscussed move on 31 December 2017‎ with no edit summary. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nine PublishingJohn 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)
  • (Discuss)2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash2019 Emiliano Sala air accident – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. 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 or why this particular one is notable. The death of Emiliano Sala is of widespread interest to readers who have little familiarity with aviation, and the titles of most press articles about the crash refer to Sala without referring to the aircraft type, so it makes sense to name the article after the man rather than the aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 18, 2019

Elapsed listings

Backlog

References


See also