Wikipedia:Requested moves

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 move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • 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

  • Muri (food)  Puffed rice (move · discuss) – Last year someone moved this general article about puffed rice and its production to the specific Indian title and a semi-dab was created in its place. I wish to revert this change as there is no need to seperate the Indian food from the rest, the dab page left behind has no significant content. All the general information about puffed rice production is still present in the Muri page. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • 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. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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 13 August 2020" and sign the post for you.

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 Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds.

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 13 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020 (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 13 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020 (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 13 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020‎ (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 13 August 2020

– why Example (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020 (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 13 August 2020

– why Example (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2020 (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 automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' 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}}. 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. 70 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

August 13, 2020

  • (Discuss)1889–1890 flu pandemic1889–1890 pandemic – We should consider whether it is appropriate to have "flu" in the title, as it have been suggested that the pandemic was caused not by influenza, but by a coronavirus. The strongest evidence in favor of this hypothesis is the 2005 article from Vijgen et. al., while the newer Danish results should be given very little weight, as it has yet to be published. See also these news articles on the topic: [1][2]. For me, the critical question is what the larger scientific community's stand is on this. Do they consider it established that this was an influenza pandemic, with the Vijgen et al. article a challenger to the established claim? Or do they consider the question unresolved, with some things pointing in the direction of an influenza (the historical position), and some newer results in the direction of a coronavirus? I think others are better to assess this than me. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shin Megami Tensei: NocturneShin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne – Game was originally called III: Nocturne in Japan, but in US dropped the III (in Europe it was called "Lucifer's Call)". In the new rerelease, it is "III: Nocturne" in all regions, including US. Talk page has been slow, but consensus is in favor of a move. Can't automatically move due to III Nocturne existing as a redirect. Buh6173 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yukika TeramotoYukika (singer) – She has gone by Yukika professionally for nearly 2 years. While she has a lot of credits under her old name, her Korean idol career is her most consistent project in years and, as a result, she is mostly known under that name.. A good example of a foreigner changing their professional name after leaving one industry to go into the Korean idol industry where they are now more known under their new professional name is ViVi whose article is under her new professional name. I think it would make sense to give Yukika the same treatment, but I'm also new to being a Wikipedia editor, so I'm not sure and would like extra input. Anonyverse (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

August 12, 2020

  • (Discuss)Biuro SzyfrówCipher Bureau (Poland) – It's the English Wikipedia, use English terms when possible. Proposed new title lets the user see what the article is about when they access it or see it in a list. An earlier informal discussion in 2006 ended in a 2-2 tie, but one editor argued that "We typically use the name of organisations in their own language: Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, B-Dienst, Bundesnachrichtendienst etc...", but two of those three articles have seen been renamed to English, so that argument doesn't appear to apply anymore. I suppose things have changed since 2006, which was a long time ago. This Google Ngram seems odd since use of either term seems to start only in 1970. I suppose nobody wrote about the organization in English til the Ultra info started to come out. Anyway, if the Ngram is accurate, it shows "Polish Cipher Bureau" usually ahead of "Biuro Szyfrów" and "Biuro Szyfrow" combined, by a bit. And that's not considering how many of the generic "Cipher Bureau" references are to the Polish Cipher Bureau -- surely some, and maybe a lot. (We could rename the article to just "Cipher Bureau" since there's no article by that name. However, that's silly; the single additional word "Polish" places the entity in much better context when encountered here or in a list, and is thus a service to the reader. Template {{EnigmaSeries}} names the link to this article this way, rather than the head-scratcher "Cipher Bureau". "Polish Cipher Bureau" would be OK too. Count me out of supporting any rename to just "Cipher Bureau".) Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Global warmingClimate change – Currently climate change redirects to global warming. This proposal is to reverse that, having the global warming article renamed to climate change, with global warming redirected to it. The reason for the move is that climate change has superseded global warming as the term used to describe the phenomena of human-caused temperature changes on Earth and their effects, which is what this article covers. The google books ngram viewer shows climate change being used 12.6 times more often than global warming as of 2019: In google searches in general, climate change has been searched for more than twice as often as global warming over the last 12 months:,global%20warming&hl=en-US The change is: * WP:NATURAL WP:COMMONNAME: This is the primary term used for the phenomena * WP:CONCISE: Being concise eliminates compromise names like "Global warming and climate change", "Climate change (global warming)", and other variants * WP:PRECISION: While global warming and climate change are used interchangeably in the popular press, in scientific terms climate change includes the effects of global warming, which this article does * WP:NEUTRAL: Climate change is the term primarily used in the scientific community (e.g. the IPCC), while global warming is considered to be a more alarmist term that is primarily relegated to the popular media (e.g. an inconvenient truth). If our focus is neutral and on the science, climate change is the word we want to focus on. Removing "global warming" from the title increases the likelihood people will approach the article with an open mind and that the content will be more scientifically grounded. To address a popular complaint, some say "Climate change" can mean climatic variability that is not modern, human caused climate change. This is a theoretical argument that is not true by the numbers. Femke Nijsse performed the -10YEARS test on Google scholar. The first 50 articles all use climate change in the UNFCCC definition [3]. Consider that global warming also has a general definition, would you argue that global warming should deal with its general definition then as well? Should Wikipedia's article on "evolution" talk about how things can change in general, instead of being about darwin's theory of evolution? Please consider this rename option vs the status quo, as alternatives like forking the article can still be pursued after this name change. Note related article Climate variability and change, which covers non-human caused climate changes (see its talk page for more naming discussions). A relatively recent and lengthy discussion of naming for this article is located here. Efbrazil (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2020 Bangalore riots2020 Bangalore violence – Imv, violence would be the more appropiate name per WP:COMMONNAME according to which the "the name that is most commonly used as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" should be used. An analysis of the articles used by various reliable sources (in this case news orgs) show that the term "riots" for this incident is rather conservatively used, whereas "violent protests" or "violence" are much more common. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mauro CicheroMauro Cichero (footballer) – This footballer has a son with the same name: Mauro Cichero (soccer). Requesting move due to the same name. The father's page was a one sentence stub before I improved it, so I don't really think either is WP:PRIMARYNAME. Originally when I created the page for the son, I thought he was American-born, hence why I named the page with the soccer tag instead of footballer. The son was born in Venezuela, but moved to the US at age 4 and played college soccer and now professionally in the USA. Soccerway also lists his nationality as American with a birth nation of Venezuela, but the USL League website lists his nationality as Venezuelan and a reference does quote him as saying he would like to represent the Venezuelan team like his brothers did. It could perhaps be changed to footballer or remain as soccer - I'm not sure which is more appropriate. So I propose two options: Option 1: Rename father's article to Mauro Cichero (footballer) and leave son's page as is at Mauro Cichero (soccer). Option 2: Rename father's article to Mauro Cichero (footballer, born 1951) and rename son's page to Mauro Cichero (footballer, born 1995) RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)70th Anniversary Grand Prix2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix – There is a uniform name schema for individual World Championship race articles: "YEAR NAME Grand Prix". As was already agreed above, the "NAME" in this case is "70th Anniversary", as it indeed serves as a single semantic entity and can't be broken into "70th" and "Anniversary" without changing its meaning. So unlike some claims made in various recent discussions, the "70th" part can't serve as a substitute for the year (or indeed for the ordinal number of the particular race in a series, as in e.g. "2º Gran Premio di San Marino", which it is not in this case) even if it sort of uniquely identifies the season. I say "sort of" because even the year/season could be arrived at by different means as either 2019 (70th running of the World Championship) or 2020 (70th anniversary of the first WC race, as indeed intended by the FIA here). There is no reason to deviate from this standard race article naming schema – as we use it on Wikipedia even for true one-off races (like Styrian or Tuscan this year). And additionally, even the official name of this 70th Anniversary Grand Prix doesn't omit the year ("Emirates Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix 2020"). So to summarize, there are three good reasons to stick to the standard naming convention: to maintain uniformity among the related article names; to avoid any confusion as to the year/season where any confusion could be easily avoided in the first place by explicitly stating the year; and to take into account that even the official name includes the year of the running. cherkash (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sexual racismSexual racial preference in the United States – This more clearly identifies the contents of the article. (1.) Wikipedia:NDESC One person is not entitled to another's body or company. Qualifying a person's decision to enter a relationship or... relations with someone else as racism, regardless of the reason behind it, either from malice or negligece, is unwarranted. Ascribing negative connotations associated with racism to personal preference is unwarranted. (2.) Wikipedia:PRECISION While a couple of other countries are mentioned, the vast majority of the article relates to the US, as several have already mentioned in Talk:Sexual racism Son of a T-14 Armata (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

August 11, 2020

  • (Discuss)Eldorado ResortsCaesars Entertainment (2020)Caesars Entertainment to become a disambiguation page Next week, Eldorado Resorts will complete its acquisition of Caesars Entertainment Corporation and will change its own name to "Caesars Entertainment, Inc." This will make three companies that have been named "Caesars Entertainment" over the years. This exacerbates an already bad disambiguation situation: "Inc." vs. "Corporation" is not a good way to distinguish two companies, because very few readers will already know which is which. Both of the previous Caesars had other names that they used for a longer period of time: The first one was Park Place Entertainment for 5 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 2 years. The second one was Harrah's Entertainment for 15 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 10 years. So moving these two articles back to their old names comports nicely with WP:COMMONNAME (in the span of these companies' histories, there are presumably more sources using the name that they used for a longer time) and avoids recentism bias (there's no other reason to automatically prefer the final name used by a no-longer-extant company). I'm not as sure about where to move the Eldorado Resorts article. It doesn't seem to have a good claim to being the primary topic, though perhaps it will in 10 years (when it will be the company that has used this name the longest). But there isn't a good natural disambiguation for it, and all the choices I can think of seem clunky: "Caesars Entertainment (2020)", "Caesars Entertainment (current)", "Caesars Entertainment (former Eldorado)". Toohool (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)San Pedro, Bagabag, Nueva VizcayaSan Pedro, Bagabag – More concise and precise, also in accordance with new WP:MOSPHIL guidelines which requires the use of settlement-LGU (whether a city or a municipality) as the disambiguator. Since the Bagabag disamb page only lists two places named "Bagabag," and that only the Philippines has district-type administrative divisions called barangays (no "barangays" in Papua New Guinea), there's no need to use the name of the province because it is "overprecise." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)20th Century Fox Home Entertainment20th Century Studios Home Entertainment – Disney is shedding the Fox name for good according to this article: Low, Elaine (August 10, 2020). "Disney Rebrands TV Studios, 20th Century Fox TV to Become 20th Television". Variety. Retrieved August 10, 2020. AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cryptocurrency walletCrypto wallet – There is a dispute about the scope of this article (see #Crypto wallet discussion above). Cryptocurrency wallets are a subset of cryptographic wallets. To widen the scope of the article, it was moved to crypto wallet. This is a procedural RM after the move proved controversial. Comments on the proper title and scope of this article are appreciated. Wug·a·po·des 23:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yama (Buddhism)King Yama (Buddhism) – I think we should consider moving the page name to King Yama (Buddhism) in order to avoid confusion with the page Yāma, an unrelated Buddhist heavenly realm. The figure's full name is Yamaraja (King Yama) anyways and it seems sources generally call the figure by that name. [5] [6] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. © Tbhotch (en-3). 04:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Religious professionReligious professions in Catholicism – While this article is only linked to my what appear to be Catholic institutions, a "religious profession" in itself is not Catholic, and is rather synonymous with a creed. This move reflects that this article only is relevant to the Catholic tradition and frees up the article space to redirect to creed instead, as again, a profession of religious adherence and a creed are really quite synonymous. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 14:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Álvaro de Figueroa, 1st Count of RomanonesCount of Romanones – As one of the obvious exceptions under WP:OBE, of application in equal terms to other European nobility (When one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known), to the point that he is even referred under the shortened "Romanones" nickname. The proposed title has been a redirect to the main article since 2007, so there's quite a lot of stability in the in-wiki use of the title as well. Impru20talk 16:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Heureka (science center)Heureka – This article was moved to Heureka (science center) to avoid confusion with Archimedes's famous exclamation "Eureka". There is no such confusion as the names are spelled differently - note the H in "Heureka". Wikipedia has no other articles about anything else named Heureka, all the other meanings are spelled "Eureka". JIP | Talk 14:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 10, 2020

  • (Discuss)Homo sapiensEarly modern human – The contents of this article (and the general consensus of how this article should look like) deals with H. sapiens specifically from evolution until the beginning of recorded history, with a special focus on the last major migration out of Africa, dispersal patterns, and the origins of "behavioral modernity". By specifically excluding history and anything past agriculture (for example, it's already been discussed that things like astronauts or women's suffrage will never be discussed on this article), this article only focuses on early modern humans as opposed to Homo sapiens as a whole, and therefore the article title should be changed to reflect the narrower scope. Note, this is not a discussion on if an article entitled Homo sapiens should exist or not. Whether human should be moved to the heading Homo sapiens is a different discussion entirely.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nur-SultanAstana – On Wikipedia we use the common name. Astana seems to be the one preferred at least by non-Kazhaks. When I type Nur-Sultan, mostly Kazinform. When I search Astana, the results are much varied. I don't know which name Kazakhs prefer. But I think there's a strong case for renaming it back to Astana. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BlippiStevin John – Article is titled "Blippi" which is an acting role Stevin John portrays on youtube. Article title should be of his actual legal name. Blippi is already mentioned in the article body along with "Steezy Grossman" which is another role Stevin John has portrayed in the past. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AllahabadPrayagraj – .The discussion is going on for so long and it doesn't seem to stop.. Why? Because the majority of Arguments and Wikipedia Users (when you consider the discussion so far) is pro the move of the article's name finally to it's official name since 2018, a long planned (the first recommendation of the new/old name was shortly after the Establishment of the Indian State in the 1940s, almost instantly thereafter. It is the old and original name, only renamed under Moghul occupation of the land (amongst a wide range of other war crimes). The cities name Prayagraj worships and desribes its Status as one of the holiest places within Hinduism while also being the place of the holiest holiday within all of India, the Kumbh Mela, which only further shows it's significant importance for having a Hinduism related name in opposition to the openly Muslim and from the foreign and not used language Arabic derived city name Allahabad, which is why not only the majority Hindu population but also local newspapers, but newspapers and media around the world in every language have already accepted the new and original name Prayagraj - just type in Kumbh Mela and news of the Last 2 years in Google, the examples are way too many and evidence if Media around the globe accepting the new name like they have with others cities names, only some Wikipedia are a few steps behind, while even here the majority of Wikipedias have moved the Page to the new name Prayagraj already while the aegumentation of the ones which didn't move it is first because English Wikipedia hasnt moved it so far, while not endorsing the other arguments (for some Wikipedias only a few people, sometimes only 2 or 3,being Administrators are responsible for deciding the article's name after all). While also the Category discussion of the same name was being ignored because the article's name still was Allahabad. So now this is the move to finally get the article being renamed, solve this neverending issue and giving credit to them many Wikipedia writers, who invest their rare spare time writing and editing and wrote that many arguments pro the move of Allahabad to Prayagraj. Many arguments I have probably forgotten, like that Google and Britannica 2 powerful and well used and recognized sources use the new name Prayagraj already. Those Arguments you are free to write. Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ==
  • (Discuss)Ajay RajAjay Raaj – This is the name on his social media page.[2] Furthermore, a disambiguation is needed becaue there are two actors who work in Tamil-language films that are named Ajay Raj: this one and Ajay Raj (Kannada actor). TamilMirchi (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wikipedia:Move review → ? – As the result of this RfC in 2018 as well as this series of edits a few months later, the "Move review" board is no longer just for move reviews. Going by the result of the linked RfC, it seems that the intent of this board is supposed to be for any discussion that does not involve proposing deletion. My opinions aside about this being the clearest way to distinguish deletion discussions from non-deletion discussions, as well as my opinions about the how the RfC played out, I'm putting this move request here solely on the fact this page is supposed to now be used for more than move reviews per the result of the linked RfC. If this is to be the case, the current name of this page no longer encapsulates the entirety of the intended scope of this page. So ... if this scope is to be updated, the name of the page probably needs to be changed to Wikipedia:Non-deletion review or something similar. (For the record, I'm neutral on any name change if the scope remains the same [but should be moved away from the current title] ... which is exclusive from my opinion about whether or not I support the current scope of the page as determined by the linked 2018 RfC.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A. O. Anderson, "Early Sources", vol. ii, pp. 617  * Marion Campbell's "Argyll: The Enduring Heartland" has a map with "Gigha I." but the text always refers to "Gigha" alone.   * The most comprehensive book about the island is Czerkawaska, Catherine (2006) God's Islanders: A History of the People of Gigha. Edinburgh. Birlinn. ISBN 1-84158-297-2. It has a map called "Isle of Gigha" and one or two references to the same in the text but most of them are to "Gigha".   In other words, most of the sources listed as refs in the article use "Gigha".  It is quite true that the Ordnance Survey have chosen to use "Isle of Gigha" I don't have any idea why they have done that (or for Skye). It is also true that the local development trust is called "Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust" but you will also notice that after introducing themselves the next section on their home page is "About Gigha" and that both "Gigha" and "Isle of Gigha" are liberaly sprinkled about.     The only reference on JSTOR I could find is "An Account of the Fungi of Arran, Gigha and Kintyre". P. M. Kirk, B. M. Spooner. Kew Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 4 (1984), pp. 503-597     So if you do few web searches "Isle of Gigha" looks good. If you examine the literature in print about the topic this is at best an occassional use. Even web searches to more reliable sources that are less interested in marketing such as the Gazetteer have "Gigha". In other words "Isle of Gigha" is nowhere near being the WP:WIAN and (unlike e.g. Mull) there is no need to disambiguate. Respectfully, Ben MacDui 15:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Special Deployment CommandoSpezialeinsatzkommando – Use same page title as German Wikipedia de:Spezialeinsatzkommando and also French fr:Spezialeinsatzkommando. Title was originally Spezialeinsatzkommando and was moved by Mesoso2 in June 2016 to current title Special Deployment Commando. Page was moved obviously to use the English name of the unit. However, I can't find an official English name for SEK. Translations of the name vary including Special Deployment Commando, Special Task Force (using Google translator), Special Operations Command (using Microsoft translator), etc.. and the article introduction uses Special Operational Unit (following this edit in January 2019), etc.. Spezialeinsatzkommando is the name of the unit used by the Police (Polizei).[3][4] Melbguy05 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rede ExcelsiorTV Excelsior – Looking at the article and looking at the sources there and from searching google and images, it would seem that the name is actually "TV Excelsior" and not "Rede Excelsior". Since this article has only 1 dead link source, not a lot to work on. Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Etisalat MisrEtisalat Egypt – We do not necessarily use legal company names as titles in Wikipedia. While "Etisalat Misr S.A.E" is the legal name of the company, the name Etisalat Egypt is to differ this from other companies named Etisalat in other parts of the world, hence the (English) country name, not to reflect a legal name. Otherwise if we only go be legal names, then Vodafone Egypt should be renamed "Vodafone Egypt Telecommunications SAE" for example. MatthewS. (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Locked Up (TV series)Vis a vis (TV series) – Article was moved without discussion in May 2019 from its original Spanish title to its "English-language title" by PC78, but I question whether it should have been when the article's own title card is "Vis a vis", and the four season articles are still at Vis a Vis (season 1) (shouldn't this be Vis a vis (season 1)?...), etc. As per WP:CONSISTENCY, either everything should be at "Vis a vis", or everything should be at "Locked Up"... So, should this article be moved back to its original Spanish title Vis a vis (TV series)? Or should the season articles all be moved to "Locked Up"?... Let's discuss, and come to a consensus. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2020 VCDL Lobby Day2020 Virginia Lobby Day – Virginia Lobby Day is used by many organizations and is not controlled by any one group. It is not a day specifically for gun control or its opponents. There are Lobby Day activities every year in Virginia--including 2020--for organizations as diverse as the NAACP[5], Virginia Nurses[6], and environmental groups[7].
George Bounacos (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Concord MusicConcord Music Group – Concord Music Group is the entity the combines with Bicycle Music to become Concord Bicycle Music, which became Concord Music, which became Concord (entertainment company). The only entries that are needed are [Music Company], Concord Music Group and [[13]]. Therefore the page currently names Concord Music should be renamed Concord Music Group and the current redirect may be erased. MozartMania (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 9, 2020

  • (Discuss)Pistacia terebinthusTerebinth – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The disambiguation page Terebinth has only two entries: This and Terebinth of Nero. The Terebinth of Nero was a mausoleum associated with a terebinth tree (Pistacia terebinthus), and therefore is not a distinct use, but a specific example of a terebinth. The disambiguation page appears to have existed because formerly terebinths were considered to be of two species, the other Pistacia palaestina; when scientific consensus (and therefore the articles) changed, the unnecessary disambiguation page remained. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Operation DemetriusInternment during the Troubles – Briefly discussed at #Background over ten years ago. Operation Demetrius was the military operation of 9–10 August 1971, plus presumably the interrogation of various suspects detailed in the article. Obviously this will still be covered in the article, but I believe it would be better slightly reframed to deal with the subject of internment during the Troubles, not just two-day the military operation in 1971. I do not favour Internment (Northern Ireland) as a title, as suggested in the old discussion. Although suspected IRA members were interned in Northern Ireland during the Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and the Border campaign (Irish Republican Army) the information available is not as comprehensive as internment during the Troubles, so would be best covered by a paragraph or three in a background section. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)See You When I Am FamousSee You When I Am Famous!!!!!!!!!!!! – It's possible that this may have gone through as an uncontroversial and uncontested move, but because of the unusual case with the punctuation I thought it best to have a discussion. The article's overall notability is weak, but what reliable sources exist, all list this album with the 12 exclamation marks at the end of its title. These include the Billboard chart placing [14], the review in The Post (which probably isn't acceptable, as it's a student newspaper) [15], and articles in Uproxx [16], HotNewHipHop [17] and Complex [18]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Jerm (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

August 8, 2020

  • (Discuss)MališevoMalisheva – This move is requested in coordination with WP:Common Name and WP:Place#Multiple_local_names. Background: Since Kosovo has two official languages (Albanian and Serbian) every place in Kosovo has an Albanian and a Serbian name. We have no official name and no name where both languages are commonly included like Biel/Bienne. Based on the policies presented above we have to choose either the Albanian or the Serbian name based on common usage in English sources. Until now we have the Serbian version which should be changed. Some search engine results: Google Books Ngram Viewer 2008-2019: * [25] Here we can see that Malisheva was always more used than Mališevo. After 2016 we can also see that Malisheva even took over Malisevo without the "š". Google search analysis: * [26] 445,000 results for Malisheva +Kosovo -Wikipedia * [27] 50,500 results for Malisevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia * [28] 200,000 results Mališevo +Kosovo -Wikipedia Google scholar 2015-2019: * [29] 73 results for Malisheva Kosovo * [30] 21 results for Malisevo Kosovo * [31] 21 results for Mališevo Kosovo Conclusion: The search engine results clearly show us that Malisheva is the common English name. Some side facts: * The population of Kosovo is of 92 % Albanian and 4 % Serbian ethnicity. * The municipality of Malisheva (according to the census of 2011) [32] has a poulation of 54,631 of which 54,501 (99,8 %) decleared themselves as Albanians and literally not a single person decleared himself a Serb. Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Great Mosque of Meccaal-Masjid al-Haram – These are the multiple reasons why I think the name should be reverted to Al-Masjid al-Haram or similar:
    A. The Al-Masjid an-Nabawi article:
    The aforementioned article concerning the Prophet’s Mosque uses the Arabic name for its title, as do most other articles about mosques on Wikipedia.
    B. Google Ngram Viewer and the popularity of Al-Masjid Al-Haram and other forms
    Wikipedia recommends using Google Books Ngram Viewer to support move claims per WP:RM. Given this, Ngram Viewer shows that the name Masjid al-Haram is more than 3.5x more prevalent in usage than both Great Mosque of Mecca and Grand Mosque of Mecca individually, and around 2x more popular than both combined. In addition, Google Trends shows that the names Masjid al-Haram, Masjid Al Haram and Al Masjid Al Haram, combined, are 13x more popular in searches on Google than Great Mosque of Mecca and Grand Mosque of Mecca combined, on average.
    C. Concerning the previous name change
    I believe the previous name change was made hastily and inconsiderably. The main concern of the person suggesting the previous name change was a violation of WP:CONCISENESS, however, I believe that the current name violates WP:PRECISION, WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISENESS, and, albeit to a much smaller degree, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. AccordingClass (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SarazSaraz, Doubs – I can't see a primary topic between the French commune and the region of Kashmir, with the rivers and the people (two of each) probably not as prominent but still relevant. Pageview statistics, especially for recent months, also suggest the commune is not the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kagoma languageGyong language – Requesting on behalf of Kambai Akau, who was having some trouble formatting the request. Their justification was: "Gyong" is the native and most acceptable name, with "Kagoma" being the exogenous name.. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mecca RegionMakkah Province – Given that this article is about the Saudi administrative division, I believe the spelling and naming should conform to that which is being used by the Saudi government:
    Province, not Region: As such, the website of the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Interior, which maintains a comprehensive list of the emirates/provinces and other sectors within the scope of the ministry, uses the name Emirate of Makkah Province.[1] My understanding is that the Saudi government, in addition to the ministry, refers to the geographic region as province and the administrative division as emirate and that the article needs to reflect this.
    Makkah, not Mecca: In addition to the fact that the aforementioned website of the Ministry of Interior uses the name Makkah Province,[2] Google Ngram Viewer shows that the name Makkah Province is almost 6 times more prevalent in usage than Mecca Region.[3]
    Conclusion: In the case this request is approved, I believe the same changes should be applied to all articles concerning the provinces of Saudi Arabia. AccordingClass (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Geology of the Lake DistrictGeology of Cumbria – The Lake District is a subsection of Cumbria. The proposed rename would fix the current absence of a Cumbria article in the set of "Geology of English counties" articles. A separate Geology of Cumbria article would probably be a copy of this Lake District article with only a few minor additions. The Lake District of England is one of several (possibly more?) lake districts of the world and a rename to Geology of Cumbria (and conversion of "Geology of the Lake District" into a redirect to Geology of Cumbria) would avoid the need for future disambiguation if articles were created for the geology of these other lake districts. GeoWriter (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

August 7, 2020

  • (Discuss)The Star of CottonlandWata no Kunihoshi – In the fan community, "The Star of Cottonland" is (by far) the most common title. This is likely due to one or more fansubs available for the anime film based on the manga. However, I can find no scholarly or other reliable sources that use "The Star of Cottonland". Rachel Thorn, an established expert on manga, asked about the current title in the section above, so I started looking to see what I could find. Within the books I have on manga and anime, only two mention the title (as far as I could find...I was scanning the indices and may have missed something). *The Anime Encyclopedia (revised and expanded edition), by Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy, has an entry on page 113 for the same-titled anime film under the title "Cotton Star". It also has a romanized "Wata no Kuniboshi" (the "boshi" part is incorrect, based on the original manga) and an alternate translation of "Planet of Cotton". *Anime: A Guide to Japanese Animation (1958-1988), by Andrea Baricordi, Massimiliano de Giovanni, Andrea Pietroni, Barbara Rossi, and Sabrina Tunesi, has an entry for the anime film on page 161. It uses the titles Wata no Kuni Boshi (the "boshi" again being incorrect according to the original manga) and a translated title of The Planet of the Cotton Country. I did find an academic paper titled "The Invalidation of Gender in Girls' Manga Today, with a Special Focus on 'Nodame Cantabile'", by Masuko Honda, Lucy Fraser, and Tomoko Aoyama. It requires JStor access, which I have, but not at this location. It mentions the manga, and I'll look it up once I get where I can check the full paper. This is the only academic paper I've found that mentions it. I can't find it any other books I have or in any that are on Google Books (outside of one that collects a bunch of anime and manga articles from Wikipedia). So, the question everyone is: What title should this article be at? I suggest that it should be at Wata no Kunihoshi as that is the Romanization of the original Japanese title. Any mention of The Star of Cottonland should be in brief and we should keep the redirect from that title. Please discuss below. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Queen BessQueen Bess (disambiguation) – The overwhelming historical significance of "Queen Bess" is as a nickname for Elizabeth I, who is in turn the most important topic known by this name. I propose that we move this disambiguation page and redirect the title to the primary topic. BD2412 T 16:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1991 August Coup1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt – In 2013 while the article was at 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, an RM ended in no consensus. Recently the page was boldly moved despite this earlier lack of consensus. I think this requires a new full discussion and if there is lack of consensus again the article should be moved back to its original title. In comparison to the original title, the reference to the Soviet Union should certainly be kept but "d'etat" and "attempt" are less important elements and may eventually be dropped from the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Psilocybin mushroomPsilocybin mushrooms – was previously on the plural title but was moved in 2010 per this technical request. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) there are two main types of exceptions to the rule that in general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles. An exception is articles on groups or classes of specific things. The title in singular form is downright misleading as it implies that there is a single species of mushroom called "the" psilocybin mushroom. There is not. This is about a group of mushrooms collectively called "psilocybin mushrooms". Template:Psilocybe mushrooms clearly shows all the species that are included in this group – more than just those in the genus Psilocybe. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AniruddhaAnirudha – The name 'Anirudha' is a sanskrit word, and Aniruddha (current page title) is not the 100% accurate pronunciation. There is already a redirect page with the name Anirudha, due to which I couldn't move the page. I would like the current page to be moved and exchanged with the redirect page, as the pronunciation would be more accurate. PPCMD (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

August 6, 2020

  • (Discuss)N/aN/A – Per the rationale proposed by User:The Mysterious El Willstro a few sections above, this appears to be an initialism, and is listed as a capitalized title, "N/A", in the Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations. BD2412 T 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Ancient Chinese clothingHanfu – The current topic cannot describe this page correctly. First of all, Hanfu itself has nothing to do with ethnic-minority groups or someting like that. If you say a costume named after nationalities will have a race problem, how about Kimono and Hanbok, or Việt Phục? Secondly, Hanfu is not just an ancient clothing, many people wear it nowadays just like Kimono. Third, Hanfu is much more commonly used than the so called ancient Chinese clothing. 芄蘭 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hungarian SpectrumEva Balogh – As discussed in the AfD, this article is largely focused on Eva Balogh rather than the blog itself and all of the potential notability-indicating sources actually talk about Balogh in more detail than the blog itself. The blog-specific details can be placed in a "Hungarian Spectrum" section in the Eva Balogh article. — MarkH21talk 19:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
TamilMirchi (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2020 Beirut explosions2020 Beirut explosion – Drop the S. "Explosions" refers to multiple explosions, either at different locations or different times. This was one single explosion that got bigger and bigger in a span of a few minutes. Furthermore, reliable sources, including all main stream media are calling it "Beirut explosion" without an S. SamirMamdouh (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Popery and PapismPopery – While I don't think the current title is unacceptable per WP:AND, the article fairly treats the terms as synonymous, and we don't typically add synonyms to titles. I would be just as happy with Papism as the title. (If we want to keep both terms, it should probably be Popery and papism per WP:NCCAPS; the title looks like a book title as is.) --BDD (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)ICloud leaks of celebrity photosThe Fappening – I understand this was slightly contentious at the time and even the redirect from The Fappening was nominated for deletion because the nominator found it a "sophomoric [name] ... which has gotten traction in some of the lower-tier tabloid media/SEO blogs ... but which more proper media isn't giving the time of day" source, but now, it seems obvious "The Fappening" is the most common way of referring to this even in established and respected media, seconded by "Celebgate" (which I think should also be bolded in the opening paragraph). "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" is a mouthful of a Wikipedia neologism that has won zero traction in the news and in academic study. Evidence: BBC: "Meet the man behind the leak of celebrity nude photos, called the fappening" [37] "Edward Majerczyk will spend nine months in jail for what was widely known as the fappening or celebgate." [38] Fox News: "Speaking of sex, the actor weighed in on "The Fappening" — the scandal involving the release of private celebrity nude photos and he said he's actually "scared" of the whole privacy invasion." [39] WaPo: "What makes the Sony hack any different from the ‘Fappening’?" [40] The Economist: "Then, when the iCloud hacking scandal broke - the so-called "Fappening" - they published a scathing indictment of anyone who had the nerve ..." [41] Politico: "Eric Goldman, the co-director of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute, says: “If Gawker wins, I think it will further embolden online publishers that anything related to celebrities is fair game. That could be used to justify publication of unredacted photos from the Fappening [last year’s massive hack of celebrities’ nude photos], for example.”" [42] "The nightmare continues for celebrities as more photos land online in what is turning out to be the Fappening 2.0." [43] The New Yorker: "It also found a name—the Fappening." [44] TIME Magazine: "Celebgate' Hacker Gets 18-Month Sentence for Hacking Celebrity Nude Photos" "What followed became known as Celebgate or “The Fappening,” in which private photographs from celebrities, including actress Jennifer Lawrence and model Kate Upton, were leaked online in September 2014." [45] Furthermore, on Google Scholar, a search for "the fappening" generates 725 results, among them the following mentions, some in the titles of the papers: "#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures" [46] "Analyzing Virtual Manhood: Qualitative Analysis of Fappening-Related Twitter Data" [47] "This article engages with media responses to the 2015 Ashley Madison hack (which largely exposed the sexual details of adult heterosexual men) and the 2014 ‘Fappening’ hack (which exposed private sexual images of adult female celebrities)." [48] "In their study of Twitter response to The Fappening, the widely publicized 2014 nude photo hacking of hundreds of largely white, able‐bodied, heterosexual, cisgender, celebrity women, they found four distinct means by which online actors signaled masculine personas ..." [49] "Celebgate: Two Methodological Approaches to the 2014 Celebrity Photo Hacks" " Internet users and media respondents have termed the phenomenon “Celebgate” or, more popularly and vulgarly, “The Fappening” (a portmanteau between ‘happening’ and ‘fap’—slang for masturbation). " [50] On Google Books, I find a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality: "In late August 2014, some of these issues allied to pornography, selfrepresentation and celebrity were captured in an event that was widely referred to as the 'Fappening', when online hackers of Apple's iCloud leaked sexually explicit images ..." Google ngrams: [51] I think "The Fappening" with ease meets all the criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA and it's obviously the most WP:COMMONNAME for the hack/leak. Also for people objecting to the crudeness of the moniker, remember that this is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia" (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ojhri CampOjhri Camp disaster – Pretty much the entire article is devoted to the disaster that took place at the camp; description of the camp itself takes up less than a sentence. As it stands, the article, under the current title, is arguably a WP:COATRACK of sorts, and it would make more sense if it were moved. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Suicide of Sinedu TadesseThe Murder of Trang Phuong Ho – The murder of Ho is the central and noteworthy element of this event, not the suicide of Tadesse. Had Tadesse murdered Ho in the Harvard dormitory and then not committed suicide, it would still be a newsworthy event and hold a place on Wikipedia. Had Tadesse not murdered Ho and only committed suicide, it would not be. The murder is the defining core of the events laid out on this page. While that alone is sufficient reason that the popular wikipedia naming convention of "The Murder of" is much more suitable here, there is also the societal more of memorializing the victim with at least as much emphasis as the perpetrator in circumstances like this, especially when there is no imbalance of fame/notoriety between murderer and victim and the murderer is known only for the murder. The current title, focused solely on the suicide of the murderer, is ill-suited for the content and at odds with both logic and social/moral values. Nepats19113 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:Autoantigens → ? – Potentially any protein-based structure in the body could be the target of an antibody, so this template has the potential to really blow out in size by listing all those things. Normal targets for antibodies (see {{Autoantibodies}}) aren't all listed? That said, I can make neither head nor tail about what the intended scope of the template is and would like to request the community's advice on what a better name would be. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Danski454 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Heroes' CemeteryLibingan ng mga Bayani – Previous page move in December 2011 was done swiftly, without the inputs of other Wikipedia:TAMBAYAN members. And per inputs of many Filipino Wikipedians on the talkpage it can be considered that Libingan ng mga Bayani is the most suitable name, because: *WP:PRECISE - Heroes' Cemetery is somewhat ambiguous. This Libingan ng mga Bayani is more exact and precise. *WP:COMMONNAME - the widespread usage of Libingan ng mga Bayani among Filipinos. To use @Bruce Hall:'s input in the post-move discussion, I believe that Libingan ng mga Bayani is more widely searched than Heroes' Cemetery. * Two sources presented above - from AP/Fox and The Guardian, used lowercase letters. Hence they just translated it unofficially and on the verge of neologism. I also feel that OVP and CNN Philippines sources made up the English name to just suit to their English usage. *With regards to the COMMONALITY, it doesn't mean that every people on Earth will expect to read this or edit this. This is a cemetery in the Philippines and the topic follows the Philippine format and norms. This includes the usage of the name that Filipinos typically use. That is Libingan ng mga Bayani. * This is also to be consistent with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. But for some reason the move attempt of Comission on the Filipino Language to Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino wasn't made successfully, despite the fact that User:Austronesier mentioned the majority of hits in Google Scholar for KWF (Scholar is far more reliable in scholarly community than ordinary Google searches). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Evangelical Christian politics in Latin America → ? – The phenomenon is much wider, it is not all about politics. I've translated this article to Portuguese with a new name. Loosely translated, it is called "Rise of the evangelical church in Latin America". That name is more appropriate, for it also suggests that it is an unusual phenomenon. I mean, evangelical Christians haven't always had influence in politics, but all of a sudden they do. I don't know precisely what the name in English should be like, so I left question mark "?" in the field above. --Bageense(disc.) 19:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BD2412 T 00:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:No substitution → ? – These two opposite templates display a banner in template documentation to advise if the template should always or never be substituted. Until recently, they were named "nosubst" and "subst only". Recently, they were renamed "no substiution" and "substitute only", respectively. Then the latter only was reverted. The purpose of this discussion is to resolve the current inconsistency. There has been a recent trend to use natural spacing, thus "no subst*" over "nosubst*". The further question is whether to use the abbreviation "subst" or the full word. Bsherr (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests


See also