Open main menu

Wikipedia β

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:

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this pageEdit

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

Undiscussed movesEdit

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely 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 movesEdit

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article then please request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

  • 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 requestsEdit

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requestsEdit

Contested technical requestsEdit

Requests to revert undiscussed movesEdit

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial movesEdit

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

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

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

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, because this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page moveEdit

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 19 November 2017" and sign for you.

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

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 movesEdit

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Commenting in a requested moveEdit

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. It is a place for rational discussion of whether an article should be renamed.

There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., Support or Oppose, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
  • Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior Requested Moves. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructionsEdit

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.


Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussionsEdit

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. 46 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

November 19, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)National Geographic (U.S. TV channel) → ? – The TV channel article is just misnamed, being over-disambiguated. It's also not really a "channel"; this term has been deprecated in this context at WP:NC-BC. "Network" is probably the right term, but there could be debate about that. There is no non-US channel/network about which we have an article, from which to disambiguate the current article, so the "U.S." in there is unnecessary and thus the present title fails WP:CONCISE. There are several, at National Geographic Channel (disambiguation); the US one was listed at [[National Geographic (disambiguation) and the rest were not. There are NatGeo cable TV offerings outside the US, but we hardly need separate articles on them; I submit that they'd be covered as sections in this article. So, that might affect how we name this. "National Geographic (television)"? I don't like DABs like that, because there is no brand of TV by that name; an attempt at disambiguation that is ambiguous is a failure. Some might argue that the common but now apparently former proper name National Geographic Channel (despite being a misnomer according to one view) is potentially viable. But not long-term. If you take pains to eliminate obvious marketing and false positives, "on National Geographic" and "on [the] National Geographic Channel" are almost tied in news usage [1][2]); however, the frequency of the longer name will decline over time as sources catch up to the name change, so we'd just have to move it again later. PS: The same rationale applies to a future article(s) on NatGeo web content: they have various subsites, and use some alternative domain names to resolve a few of them, but they're really all part of the same "National Geographic online" operation. We should consolidate this info for the same reason we do it with fictional characters into the works they're from, and for divisions and subsidiaries of corporations (absent overwhelming evidence of stand-alone notability). If there's a lot to cover, it can be listified, e.g. List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)9×19mm Parabellum9 mm Luger – I'd like to revisit this discussion. Because the last discussion here was poorly closed. The only oppose !vote was clearly out of line with WP:COMMONNAME, a core naming policy, and ignored the evidence at hand. Both SAAMI and CIP use "Luger" in the official standards, so the claim that the current title is more technically correct is itself incorrect. More importantly, if an arguement consists of "I know it's less common, but it's technically correct", then the arguement is plainly invalid by policy. Most importantly, none of the reliable sources use this title, meaning it is made up, and therefore as far away from "technically correct" as possible. The CIP standard lists "9 mm Parabellum" and "9 x 19 mm" as synonyms, but not the combination used here (the SAAMI standard doesn't even have any synonyms, just "9mm Luger"). So no matter how we slice it, it must be moved. Whether or not to use the space in "9 mm" is minor (it doesn't hurt to keep proper SI form), but ultimately, both standards bodies and the vast majority of manufacturers use "Luger", not "Parabellum". Being that Wikipedia is meant to follow sources, so should we. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. for third, and last time. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yellow Dog Updater, ModifiedYellowdog Updater, Modified – I tried to make this title change (and other edits) to reflect the correct name of the software. Specifically, "Yellowdog" as one word is correct. The existing "Yellow Dog" --Heimhenge (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)as two words is wrong, according to the original developer Kai Staats. Alas, Wiki thinks the two names are the same, and tells me the page already exists. I'd appreciate any help available, thanks. Heimhenge (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 00:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

November 18, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Dutch MannlicherGeweer M. 95 – The rifle is officially referred to in Dutch documentation as the Geweer M. 95. This is the native and correct name of this rifle. "Dutch Mannlicher" is a collector name, and in no way official. Furthermore, the native name of a rifle is preferred in other wikipedia articles e.g. the Gewehr 1888. Thom430 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Emilia, Lady DilkeEmilia Dilke – present name/title combination impossible: she was never called this. Emilia Dilke seems to be the name she is best known by. Move blocked by redirect page. Eustachiusz (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Munchausen syndromeFactitious disorder imposed on self – The applicable policy for naming of medical articles is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, which is indicated at Wikipedia:Article titles as "It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right). Unusually, the consensus for medical articles does not defer to WP:COMMONNAME, but is given at WP:NCMED as follows: * "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." * "Some examples of international standards include: Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)" The ICD-10 classification is "Intentional production or feigning of symptoms or disabilities, either physical or psychological [factitious disorder]" - see and the DSM-5 classification is "Factitious Disorder DSM-5 300.19 (F68.10). The latest article at Medscape is titled "Factitious Disorder Imposed on Self (Munchausen's Syndrome)", reflecting the modern name, which is now preferred to "Munchausen's syndrome". You can see other examples of this updating in the recent references in the article. I know this doesn't sit well with what we do in other fields, but in medical articles, using the modern, scientific name is uncontroversial. The longer title is necessary because of the existing article Factitious disorder imposed on another (which is the target of the redirect Munchausen syndrome by proxy). --RexxS (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Roy Moore sexual abuse allegationsRoy Moore teenage sexual assault allegations – 1. Sources use the term assault when they name discuss this topic:[3], [4] (even Fox), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. There are certainly other allegations, but this is the most notable and should be in the title. The article should certainly coverage other elements, but the assaults are what sources focus on. 2. The second point sources focus on is the fact the victims are underaged. I would suggest that we use the term teenage because of the age of consent issues and avoiding a debate over what is underaged. Plus most sources also use the term. [18], [19], [20], [21],[22],[23] 3. I understand any BLP concerns. First, I think the use of the term "allegations" deals with that issue. Moreover, I think there is a good argument that the word tilts the article towards not believing the women. That said, this is a well reported event and the fact that the victims are underaged and the physical nature of some events is what WP:RS focus on. Simply because something is damning to someone does not mean we don't cover it when the event is well sourced and the sourcing indicates that we focus on these elements. The proposed title is neutral based on the sources and is superior to the current title. Casprings (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Red Pyramid (novel)The Red Pyramid – The Red Pyramid redirects to the current title. The article was redirected per WP:BOLD on the grounds that Red Pyramid is the only item that needs to be disambiguated with the novel, and that the pyramid is never exclusively referred to as "The Red Pyramid" except when "The" is used as an article. Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alpha Bank SrbijaJubanka – Official name change (revert to its former name - on WikiPedia it already exists as redirect to the current page) due to change in ownership structure. - [24] (in Serbian) AirWolf talk 06:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Children's Aid SocietyChildren's Aid – The name has been officially changed. The organization has updated its website to reflect the name change to Children's Aid[1] and they have released a press release stating that the new name is Children's Aid.[2] Vzeebjtf (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 17, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)TigellaCrescentina – it's true name, this is tigella, and your Crescentina is gnocco fritto. This argument is controversial among the Italians (Modena's name vs Bologna's name) but the name of Bologna is just a metonymy, Modena's name is correct, "crescentina(s) is cooked using the tigella(s)". I hope you understand my english. (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 20:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Oregon Trail GenerationXennials – It appears that "Xennial" has far surpassed "Oregon Trail Generation" as the common name of this cohort. See for example this Google trends link, and the following recent articles: [35][36][37][38]. I struggle to find recent sources using the "Oregon Trail generation" moniker. I'm suggesting "Xennials" as opposed to "Xennial" for consistency with the titling of the current page Millennials. GTBacchus(talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Casual vacancyVacancy (politics) – This is a very general, partially globalized article about the general phenomenon of legislative vacancies and how they're dealt with, but is titled with a uniquely Australian term for them. I'm not suggesting that the separate Australian subarticle be merged, unlike the prior proposal above — but the general internationalized article about the basic concept of a legislative seat becoming vacant due to an incumbent legislator's resignation or death should be moved to a more general internationalized and less Aussified title. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cyborg (comics)Cyborg (DC Comics) – It's easy to see how the current disambiguation is too vague. It's unclear whether it refers to any cyborg that appears in a comic book, or Cyborg the character. Adding "DC" would make it more obvious that it's a specific DC Comics character. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ScudScud (missile family) – There are multiple rockets under the reporting name 'Scud,' so this is WP:COMMONNAME but I think fails the precision requirement as it does not refer to a single missile but a family/series of sometimes quite disparate models/variants. A Scud could refer to an R-11, R-17, Hwasong-6, Qiam-1, etc, and Scuds could refer to multiple R-11, R-17, Hwasong-6, Qiam-1 or all versions of the Scud family. The Redstone articles are arranged a similar way, with Redstone (rocket family) describing the versions, relationships, and a brief usage, then individual pages for the PGM-11 Redstone, Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle, and Jupiter-C. A counter-example however is the Agni (missile) which then uses Agni I, Agni II, etc. for more precision. Kivaan (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NTPC power plant explosionUttar Pradesh power plant explosion – I have been thinking about changing "NTPC" to "Uttar Pradesh" to increase readers' awareness of this article, especially for future use. Indeed, I am unsure whether people outside India are familiar with NTPC as much as Uttar Pradesh. I started the previous discussion about the current title, but presumably no one declared objections. Still, I had doubts, so I requested a technical request. Due to "2017" being removed as too precise, the request got rejected because other power plant explosions are presumed to have existed. "2017 Uttar Pradesh power plant explosion" is an alternative title to use; I don't mind reinserting "2017".  George Ho (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 01:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)August DehnelDehnel phenomenon – As per my comment above, the majority of this article is about the phenomenon, rather than being a biography of the scientist. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 01:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

November 16, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Lloyd Johnson (fashion retailer) → ? – This article is a BLP however the current name gives the impression it's a retailer (ie a shop) so to avoid confusement this should probably be moved however I'm not sure what too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)African American Vernacular EnglishAfrican American English – The main reason for a move is that the scope of this article really justifies an umbrella that actually includes two separate but related ideas differentiated by scholars, of which "African American Vernacular English" is just one idea (the other being "African American Standard English"). I will here give some detail about three such scholars. Most prominently, Arthur K. Spears highlights the importance of such a distinction. The label of "African American English" as a preferable catch-all term (in fact, specifically, a continuum) for several English varieties is also spelled out explicitly in Sonja Lanehart's The Oxford Handbook of African American Language (p. 311). This continuum idea is further supported by John McWhorter, for example in his Word on the Street and Power of Babel, in which he repeatedly shows that modern AAE speakers speak not in "unadulterated streams" of purely vernacular English (p. 143 of Word), but, in fact, code switch between a more standard and a more vernacular variety (though he confirms that both varieties are still distinct to black Americans [p. 250]), speaking "not only to varying extent, but also on different levels" (p. 147). Wolfdog (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Austria-HungaryAustro-Hungarian Empire – As the article already states "often referred to as the Austro-Hungarian Empire ... in English-language sources. The name "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is more descriptive than "Austria-Hungary". PBS (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

November 15, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Module (disambiguation)Module – Presently, Module redirects to Modularity. This is the result of a move request of 2010 (just above in this page), which has involved only 3 editors, although "module" and "modularity" interest more than ten Wikipedia projects (see the "lead" and the TOC of Modularity). The only reason invoked for the old move is that "modularity" would be the primary topic. This is wrong, at least etymologically, as modularity means ability to be decomposed into modules. But this is not the main reason for reverting this old move. The main reason is that, in many scientific fields, the term "module" is used without referring to any concept of modularity. This is the case in biology: for example the word and the concept of "modularity" does not appear at all in Cis-regulatory module and Protein domain, while "module" is widely used, including in the article title in the first case, and in a section heading in the second case. This is also the case in mathematics: in this area, "module" and "modular" refer to the Latin word "modulus", and they are definitively not related with the concept of modularity. See Module (mathematics), Modular arithmetic, Modular group, Modular form, etc. Thus the proposed move will make searching much simpler for many readers, without complicating things for the others. As the main objective of dab pages is to simplify readers search, this justifies the revert of the old move. This would also remove the ambiguity of the present redirect, which suggest wrongly that "module" and "modularity" refers always to the same concept. D.Lazard (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:AnthropocentricTemplate:Human-centric – I'd like to request that this template be moved back to {{Human-centric}}— not because that is the best or most correct term, but because it is the one that readers are most likely to understand. I have outlined some of this on the talk page of Philg88 who suggested I make the request here. The summary of that conversation is that "anthropocentric" is likely to go right past most readers. I say this as someone with an undergraduate degree in anthropology. "Human-centric" may not be the most correct term, but I think it stands a much better chance of being understood, and I am not convinced that anyone who sees the term "anthropocentric" and doesn't understand it is going to click on a link to find out what it means, even if they could. I realize this is an argument in favor of a dumbing-down of a template, but I also believe the project is better off if our readers can immediately grasp what a template means. KDS4444 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)IEEE Maxwell Award → ? – Requesting page name change. Current name is IEEE Maxwell Award. But accurately, it should be IEEE/RSE Maxwell Medal. The medal is jointly awarded by IEEE and Royal Society of Edinburgh. Also, it is a medal, not merely an award. An award can be a certificate or prize money. But a medal usually refers to a minted coin engraved after some famous person or some professional society. Hence, requesting for the name change to accurately reflect the content and topic. Thanks. Fellow007 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

November 14, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)2016 Kalamazoo shootingsKalamazoo County spree shootings – Multiple reasons:1) The title is ambiguous. There were multiple shootings in Kalamazoo in 2016, just like every year. It's a typical urban area. People get shot on a regular basis. 2)It's imprecise. Of the three crime scenes involved in this event, only one was in the city of Kalamazoo (I doubt it is in any way controversial that the prime topic for "Kalamazoo" is Kalamazoo, Michigan). 3)Another editor has expressed (through a reverted bold move to Kalamazoo shootings) that 2016 is unneeded as this is the only mass killing associated with this geographic area. That being said, and to avoid another discussion at a later time, I believe the sources have born out a contention I made above that the association with Uber is quite primary to this topic. A possible even better title might be Kalamazoo County Uber shootings or some variant of that. John from Idegon (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 01:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

November 13, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)OtogizōshiOtogi-zōshi – This makes more grammatical sense, as it is a compound word (as already explained in the article) with a rendaku. I held off on this RM while I was in transit earlier today, but when I got back I checked my copies of both Keene 1999 and Shirane 2012 (probably the two best-regarded and most widely-accessible English-language sources on classical Japanese literature in general), and both of them hyphenate. Even if every other English-language source ever written used the current Wikipedia spelling, the WP:COMMONNAME would still be the one used in the books that are in the majority of libraries in universities with Japanese studies programmes, since this topic is not "commonly" known outside such circles, except in its native Japan. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Imam Khomeini Metro StationImam Khomeini station – The "Metro Station" in the current title is a disambiguator, essentially, not a part of the station name, which is Imam Khomeini. The convention in most countries is to just use "station" here when that's enough. If more is needed, depends on the country conventions; could be "Metro station" if Metro is a short proper name for Tehran Metro, or "metro station" to keep it more generic; or Imam Khomeini station (Tehran) or Imam Khomeini station (Tehran Metro). But the current title doesn't make a lot of sense. Same goes for all the rest of the stations in the Tehran Metro, so let's talk about this one and then fix the lot. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

November 12, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Ender's Game (series)Ender's Game (book series) – per WP:CRITERIA No.1 and No.2 and per the category which says Category:Series of books. Rightly or wrongly since (series) alone on Wikipedia is de facto used by WP Video games to mean (video game series) and is the expected meaning of (series) here. For comparison we are clear with (TV series), hence here (book series). This is being picked as a typical franchise book series article - although one where video game development is "on indefinite hold". In ictu oculi (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Barrow, AlaskaUtqiagvik – I read the discussions above and they chose not to move because it wasn't the common name yet, fair enough. I did a quick google news search and all recent sources use Utqiagvik ([49], [50]) etc... The name should be Utqiagvik since that is the official name, the name of the official website, and the references in the news. If someone is to search this place after reading about it, they would be redirected to an old name that is not in use in the media. It has been stable for over a year now with the new name, so it's here to stay. Just like we should no longer use Leningrad for St. Petersburg even though there are many historical references to Leningrad, it's always best to match the current use in the media. Mattximus (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Adana railway stationAdana station – The common name for all railway stations in Turkey is XXX station. This can be seen in official State Railway documents, books, magazines and even in daily conversation. The only time that XXX railway station is used is to differentiate between a nearby bus station with the same name. These cases are not common place as bus stations are referred to as Otogar in Turkish (directly translated as Autostation) In books published by government agencies or publishers with great recognition, such as the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality Cultural Publications or the Atatürk Research Center, the naming format of XXX station can be seen. Therefore I conclude that the proper naming convention for Turkish railway stations is XXX station (Adana station, Alsancak station, Haydarpaşa station) Central Data Bank (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Forza ItaliaForza Italia (1994) – as per WP:COMMONAME and WP:NCPP, to differentiate it from and avoid confusion with the currently-active Forza Italia (2013) party, and as per WP:PRECISION, to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The current name should become a disambiguation page for these two. There has never been a proper name request on this issue, and the last time this was seemingly discussed was in 2014. As of currently, however, the actual Forza Italia party has been active for 4 years already and has contested a variety of elections. It has also featured consistently in opinion polls for years and it is expected to contest the 2018 Italian general election. Readers seeking information on the current party are brought directly to this page when typing "Forza Italia", which may add to the confusion since this article only covers the 1994 party. Impru20 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listingsEdit


See alsoEdit