Open main menu

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

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 19 July 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 19 July 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:28, 19 July 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 19 July 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:28, 19 July 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 19 July 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:28, 19 July 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 19 July 2019

– why Example (talk) 17:28, 19 July 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 19 July 2019

– why Example (talk) 17:28, 19 July 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. 50 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

July 19, 2019

July 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)11 PM (Maluma song)11 PM (song) – Disambiguation by artist name unnecessary, as there is no other song of this title on Wikipedia, but the target page is currently a redirect to the 11 PM disambiguation page Richard3120 (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KnobkierieKnobkerrie – 'Knobkerrie' is the standard spelling in the English language, see for example the Oxford Dictionary of English, 3rd Edition - it is also the spelling favoured in the vast majority of more recent English language sources, with 'knobkerry' used to a greater extent in older publications. The present title, 'knobkierie' is used much used more rarely, I don't recall a single instance of this spelling in any publication I have read (I am quite conversant with Zulu history). I wish to move the page to 'Knobkerrie', however, a previous editor moved it from the original 'Knobkerrie' and thus created a redirect page for this name. The previous editor made the move to 'Knobkierie' on the strength of an appearance of the spelling in an Afrikaans/English dictionary, which I feel is insufficient reason when this spelling is definitely much more obscure. Urselius (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Caxton (disambiguation)Caxton – No primary topic for plain "Caxton". When I Google Caxton, Caxton FX (which though has been deleted) comes up 1st and in the 1st page of results only 1 is for William Caxton which is only the 6th result and on Wikipedia as opposed to Google everyone knows to search for people by including the first name in the search. William Caxton gets 3,636 views while the other articles on the DAB page get 2,859 but views for William Caxton aren't the point anyway since some of those on the DAB are more likely to be known as plain "Caxton" its unlikely that many readers searching for just "Caxton" want William while those looking for the village in Cambridgeshire would search for just "Caxton". There are also a few other places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Frank Morris (lynch victim)Murder of Frank Morris – Very little notable biographical material, 95% of the article is about the crime and investigations rather than the person. He was known to have died as a result of arson. "Lynching of" would be more specific but the motivation for the crime has not been proven. "Homicide of" might be more technically correct as no charges/conviction. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Confessions d'un BarjoBarjo – Per WP:NCF, the naming convention for foreign films on the English Wikipedia is that if they were released in English-speaking markets with a different title than they had in their original language, then we preference the English-market title. For this film the English-market title was Barjo. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)Amadeus (film)Amadeus – The film, not the play, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is much better known, and consistently gets over 5x as many page views[12], even though the play is at the base name, and is considered one of the best films of all time, which makes it more historically significant than the play. В²C 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:Cher singlesTemplate:Cher songs – I understand that this template currently only lists the singles of Cher, however most navboxes like this should not limit themselves to singles, and should instead list the songs of the artist. Proposing move to make this in line with other similar navboxes. TheKaphox T 16:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (talk | work) 17:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2019 Venezuelan uprisingApril 2019 Venezuelan clashes – I was asked on my talk page to have another look at the close of the above RM, with some numbers from Davey2116 suggesting that there may have been enough numeric support to see consensus for a move. I have looked again, but the discussion is very complicated by preferences for other titles. I therefore can't see a clear consensus for the clashes move - both titles are supported in sources, so it's a wash and we really just have to try to ascertain the numbers for each option. Also, it's also not quite true to say the current title was "imposed", given that the previous May RM closed as "Not moved" - that asserted a consensus for the existing title. In a bid to cut through the fog, and see if there really is a preference for "clashes" over "uprising", I'm therefore reopening this as a binary RM. The choice is between "2019 Venezuela uprising" and "April 2019 Venezuelan clashes", as there was consensus against any other titles (such as "coup d'etat") in the RM above. Please do not propose any other titles (unless there's a very good reason), and just tell us which of the two options you prefer. Incidentally, I've proposed moving to "April 2019" clashes rather than "30 April 2019", since several users said above that the "30" is not necessary. But that's really a side issue. If anyone strongly feels it should be "30 April" then please just note that in your !vote. Note too that I am neutral on the issue, I'm just opening this RM as a follow-up to my close above. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, M.É. (1812). "Tableau des Quadrumanes, ou des animaux composant le premier Ordre de la Classe des Mammifères". Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris. 19: 85–122.
  2. ^ Osman Hill, W.C. (1953). Primates Comparative Anatomy and Taxonomy I—Strepsirhini. Edinburgh Univ Pubs Science & Maths, No 3. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. OCLC 500576914.
  4. ^ Bugge, J. (1974). "Chapter 4". Cells Tissues Organs. 87 (Suppl. 62): 32–43. doi:10.1159/000144209. ISSN 1422-6405.

Jmv2009 (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)Murder of Catrine da CostaDeath of Catrine da Costa – The trial resulted in a mistrial and then an acquittal; the cause of death was left undetermined. The word "Murder" has legal definitions and should not be used in this instance without a qualifier. Although dismemberment may imply murder, da Costa could have died under other causes and then been dismembered. Other options include some form of the title that has both "murder" and "trial" in it or Death and dismemeberment of Catrine da Costa --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Otpor!Otpor – Every single source cited in the article (that is not dead link) refers to the organization as "Otpor" (i.e. without the exclamation mark). "Otpor!" is just a stylization used on posters and other promotional material, but even the organization itself used "Otpor" in writing. According to WP:SE7EN, characters that are not pronounced amd are included only for stylization should be avoided unless used by the majority of reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tagi (Ginti mayor) → ? – Three 14th-century people being badly disambiguated with a job title that didn't exist in their country at the time. I'm not certain of what the more correct terminology would be, because all three stake their notability claims much more on their being mentioned in the Amarna letters, while none actually state or source anything whatsoever about political offices they may have held beyond the invocation of the word "mayor" itself — but whatever their role or title actually was, "mayor" definitely is not it, because "mayors" did not exist in the Middle East in the 14th century. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Belle and Sebastian (2017 Canadian, French animated TV series)Belle and Sebastian (2017 TV series) – Current disambiguator is overly prolix, and packs far more detail into the title than is actually necessary to distinguish it from other topics. The rule when it comes to Wikipedia titles is to always find the simplest title that the page can be given without colliding with other topics, not that the disambiguator has to max out on detail. As much as I personally dislike "disambiguation by year" in principle as anything more than a last resort option where all other possibilities have failed, that's the case here: of the two other same-named TV series, one was also French and the other was also animated, so using nationality or genre would still cause a collision. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Thirteen Assyrian FathersThirteen Syrian Fathers – Clearly preferred in English-language reliable sources. The Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage article on Georgian Christianity, Syriac contacts with only uses "Syrian". Emma Loosley Leeming in her open access book Architecture and Asceticism: Cultural Interaction between Syria and Georgia in Late Antiquity cannot make up her mind and uses "(As)Syrian Fathers" throughout. The actual ethnic identity and geographic origin of the Thirteen Fathers—and, of course, even their historicity—are open to question. Srnec (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Independent video gameIndie game – Starting an RM to establish consensus; this and list articles were moved recently to the "independent video game" form, while the dev article hasn't been discussed yet. "Indie game" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This is what reliable sources use and what every source in the main article uses, which includes sources outside video game industry. "Independent video game" is the full term used before "indie game" became the standard, but--while still in active use--it is not the common name anymore in contrast to other industries that may primarily use the term "independent" or "indy". The term "indie" is used by media (VG-related and mainstream), industry sources, conferences and conventions, awards, other works, etc. (There are examples of "independent", such as Independent Games Festival, but these are mainly historical, such as IGF, which was founded in 1998.) A lot of links can be provided that use "indie game", and I'll refer to the main article's sourcing (which admittedly could use an update and inclusion of more mainstream sourcing). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 15, 2019

  • (Discuss)Univision Deportes NetworkTUDN – The Univision Deportes Network will be renamed and rebranded as TUDN this week. [13] Also, the Univision Deportes Network brand will be dropped and deleted completely. Looks like the network will receive a new identity. (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The BFG (1989 film)The BFG (1987 film) – I would like the whole wide world to prove that the Cosgrove Hall film The BFG based on the Roald Dahl book was not first a television film. According to YouTube channel SimpsonsClips24, The BFG was first a theatrical film and was the only adaptation of Roald Dahl's work Roald Dahl himself actually liked and was also released to British cinemas on 5 November 1987. Euanjohnb (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shasta–Trinity National ForestShasta-Trinity National Forest – I would have reverted this as an undiscussed move if I'd noticed this before six years had passed, and others hadn't implicitly endorsed it. The rationale for using a dash here is a misinterpretation of MOS:DASH. More specifically, per MOS:ENBETWEEN "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." Two formerly independent national forests were merged to form one National Forest – a single entity which should use a hyphen in its compounded proper name. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Persian peoplePersians – "Persians" redirects here. other ethnicity articles follow this formula "ethnic name+s", so this one should not be different. persian is not a meta ethnicity, bunch of sub ethnic groups or nationality and using people or peoples is wrong in this case. GGBarBar (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AOCAOC (disambiguation) – Move this page to the standard page name for a disambiguation page, redirect this page to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and place {{redirect}} at the top of the target article. Over the past year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become the primary topic of the AOC "name". She is referred to as "AOC" in major media headlines, and she has registered social media accounts using that name on most major media sites. All the major search engines return her information when simply searching for AOC, and so it makes sense that AOC should redirect to her article first (presenting alternatives as a hatnote there). —Locke Coletc 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Universe of The Legend of ZeldaHyrule – Hyrule was the original name for the article, and its move to "Universe of The Legend of Zelda" is not only less WP:CONCISE but allowed for the addition of large amounts of fictional cruft and the scope of the article becoming too big. Similar to Spira (Final Fantasy X) a rename would allow the article to be categorized under fictional locations while still explaining the mythos and recurring elements. Other game specific worlds like Termina or the Dark World can probably be better explained in their respective articles. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 14, 2019

  • (Discuss)Court painter → ? – The article does not discuss only court painters or painting. "Tapestries, porcelain or pottery, silks and other types of object" are mentioned, as well as carpets. Among artists, "calligraphers, miniaturists, binders and other crafts" are mentioned, and Court sculptor redirects here (because I had nowhere else to redirect it to). The current title is thus not precise enough but I cannot think of a good alternative. The natural choice, Court artist, is a disambiguation page. Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Longplay (video games)Longplay – Per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The article was boldly moved away from this title in 2014, but records are generally known as "long play" and the gaming term is "longplay". As for the album of the same title, it isn't nearly as prominent and can't claim to be the primary topic (it gets an average daily pageview of 1 and the gaming article, 27. If that fails, I would request it be moved to Longplay (video gaming) per WP:CONSISTENCY. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

July 13, 2019

  • (Discuss)MunafiqunMunafiq – Google scholar has 400 more returns for munafiq than munafiqun: (see munafiq , munafiqun. Furthermore, there is precedence to use singular terms over plural terms on Islamic academic terms, see for example fajir, fasiq etc. Finally, munafiqun uses an Arabic suffix, i.e. "-un", even though Wikipedia encourages us to use English language rather than a foreign langaueg. This precedence has been applied to other Islamic legal terms as well. (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)David Baker (poker player, born 1972)David "ODB" Baker – following WP:Natural disambiguation, i.e. "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Googling "david baker poker" (without quotation marks) brings up numerous instances where these men are referred to in the Firstname "Nickname" Surname format, which would satisfy WP:Nickname. These two articles are currently used as examples of human name disambiguation in the naming convention guidelines at WP:NCPDAB, but they're a really bad example, as they go against article titling policy. WP:Parenthetical disambiguation is described as "Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." Using the nicknames by which they are actually known in poker-playing circles is a far better solution for an article title than a cumbersome combination of qualifiers in parentheses. Opera hat (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bacha KhanAbdul Ghaffar Khan – This is the subject's real name, as identified in the LEAD. Bacha Khan might be a nick name, but its use is not sufficient to make it a WP:COMMONNAME. There are numerous books about the subject titled with his real name, as indicated below. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mayo Clinic SquareBlock E (Minneapolis) – "Block E" is the original name of the article, and the name by which the block is referred to in the majority of sources. The current title of the article refers to a building on the block, not the actual block itself. (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

July 12, 2019

  • (Discuss)TrumpTrump (disambiguation) – - You know, everyone, I've been thinking that when people type the word "Trump" into the encyclopedia, I don't think they are looking for content on dominant suits in cards. I am actually very certain that the word "Trump" in news and scholarly articles and books and the world in general, the word "Trump" far more commonly refers to Donald Trump, the sitting president of the USA. I'm pretty confident that his article is the most popular in terms of pageviews, since it is the second-most commonly read article of all time on Wikipedia, sandwiched between the United States and Barack Obama. I'm also pretty sure that he's certain to have long-lasting educational significance: see how many news articles and books include the terms "Trump" as well as "historic" (usually in a pejorative sense). We do our readers a disservice by distancing them from the article that they almost certainly are trying to get to when they type in "Trump". Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, I think we can join together and say that the base word Trump, just like Nixon, Reagan, Obama, Merkel, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc., should redirect to the most noteworthy, most viewed, and most historically significant subject that bears that name, which in this case is the current sitting U.S. President. It has been over two years since a move request was contemplated--but it was right to move it then and it's far more correct to do so now. Red Slash 17:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Flag of Hong Kong (1959–1997)Flag of British Hong Kong – I believe that whilst this article is very much appreciated I don’t understand why this article is only exclusively about the 1959-1997 colonial flag of Hong Kong whilst there have been several versions of the flag prior to the adoption of the 1959 flag but don’t even get a mention on this article and I feel that there should be an inclusion for those former flags and also to include all the versions of the governors flags that used to be flown from Government House and in order to make the article more inclusive I request the title be changed to “Flag of British Hong Kong” so all the former colonial flags can potentially be accommodated and add the British into the title so there is no confusion with the present Flag of Hong Kong article. 2A02:C7F:5622:2000:B8E6:E0CB:D601:91E3 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)LiSA – Per the reasons spelled out here, I think it's time for a more WP:PRECISE title. LiSA is an awfully specific stylization of Lisa (disambiguation). As I proposed there, we could simply install a hatnote for any person who was confused. WP:NATURALDIS should be preferred to the current disambiguation we have now. Though, it was recently pointed out to me that this article is the example used for WP:SINGERDAB, but I'm taking my chances anyways!
    Typing LiSA into the search bar is awfully different than typing in LISA, Lisa, or lisa. Unlike the others, this title can't be plausibly confused with anything else. Any links that result from typos can fixed as they already would (because mainspace links would be linking to a disamb. page anyways and need correcting). Hope that addresses most of the concerns, but I know Steel1943 will make a more compelling case against this than I probably could preemptively muster. lol
    Cheers! –MJLTalk 00:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)The Culture (series)The Culture – A couple of issues here. The series article is disambiguated with "series" which isn't exactly addressed at WP:BOOKDAB but it does say to disambiguate with "type" and "series" is not a type as it can mean "film series" "TV series", season in the UK sense, and more. So if needed to be disambiguated, then either "book series" or "novel series". The fictional culture that appears in the work shouldn't at the primary location. NC:BOOKS again doesn't help here as it does not talk about how to disambiguate fictional topics. WP:NCTV says to use (series element)), so in this situation it would be The Culture (The Culture civilization) which I have no problem with, but expected others would so which is why I proposed "(fictional civilization)". Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 07:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Good Omens (TV series)Good Omens (miniseries) – The series is reliable sourced as a miniseries, in no less than ten separate sources: * [15]: Good Omens: miniseries (2019) * [16]: Amazon's Good Omens miniseries Review * [17]: Neil Gaiman’s six-part Amazon miniseries about an odd couple at the end of the world is an acquired taste. * [18]: displays the best part of the six-episode miniseries based on the book of the same name * [19]: before watching the six-episode miniseries on Amazon Prime Video * [20]: that the miniseries would be headed up by David Tennant and Michael Sheen * [21]: is unique among the miniseries’ six, tightly-packed episodes * [22]: 'Good Omens' Costume Designer Reveals How Keith Richards Influenced Amazon miniseries' Looks * [23]: about Amazon’s new “Good Omens” miniseries * [24]: the end of this solid miniseries adaptation of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s novel Arguments have been made that "miniseries" is not a term used in British English; this is not solely a British series, it is a British-American co-production, so it should accept terms used by American English, terminology that is listed and clearly supported by WP:NCTV. The use of "miniseries" in British English articles has clearly never been an issue, as shown by a list of no less than 76 articles that refer to British series and are disambiguated as miniseries: -- /Alex/21 03:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TaraxacumDandelion – The article for dandelions uses the scientific name of the plant, Taraxacum. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly discourages this: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Applying WP:GOOGLETEST as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME shows that there are ~4.7M hits for "Taraxacum", and ~122M (more than 25x more) for "dandelion". I would move the article myself, but I'm unable to for some reason. Stephen Hui (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Urban AirshipAirship (company) – The company dropped "Urban" from its name and is now just called "Airship."[25][26] Suggest a move to "Airship (Company)" and changing all the references to "Urban Airship" in the article. I am using the "controversial move" process, since I work for Airship and therefore have a conflict of interest. Pinging @Tas50:, who created the article in 2011 in case they want to chime in. CoreyGault (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lake Beresford International Rowing CenterSandra Stetson Aquatic Center – The facility name has been recently changed to the Sandra Stetson Aquatic Center in honor of a donor who contributed $6 million for the construction of a new building and associated botanical gardens at the site ( Tagged photos and other digital location tags for this facility currently refer to the facility with the outdated name, and the coordinates in the Wikipedia article seem to be a primary source of this issue. New text on the Wikipedia page now provides more information about the broader uses of the Sandra Stetson Aquatic Center and the page name should be changed to reflect this updated information as well. (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nikita (film)La Femme Nikita – The franchise information is contained in the film article, the 1990s TV series is not clearly the primary topic according to Google; is not the original topic, and was also called just "Nikita" in some markets, while the film was originally released as "La Femme Nikita" and is called that in several film databases. Since the film is the original property, the most influential and notable one, and contains the franchise information; it should take the base location; regardless, the TV series should not take the undisambiguated location, since even if the film does not move, "La Femme Nikita" should redirect to the 1990 film article. -- (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ a b
  3. ^ "Deciziile Comitetului Executiv din 3 iulie 2019" [The Executive Committee's decisions on 3 July 2019] (in Romanian). Romanian Football Federation. 3 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.

See also