Open main menu

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 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

  • Radisson Hotel Group → Rezidor Hotel Group (move · discuss) – move back to previous article title and prepare to split the article. "Radisson Hospitality AB " formerly Rezidor Hotel Group , was only one of the company of the new group Radisson Hotel Group, the other one was Radisson Hospitality Inc, formerly Carlson Hotels. It should have 3 articles for Carlson Hotels until the rename and merge, for Rezidor Hotel Group until the rename and merge, and the new entity Radisson Hotel Group Matthew hk (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
    If the five articles you speak of are written; forming a group of articles, which title (of the five) would be the parent with the other four being subordinate?--John Cline (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It only need 3, Radisson Hotel Group (redirect from Radisson Hospitality AB and Radisson Hospitality, Inc), Rezidor Hotel Group and Carlson Hotels (may worth to merge back to Carlson Companies). Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group should be redirect to Radisson Hotel Group. Matthew hk (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
For subordinate, i don't want to touch the mess of Radisson Blu and Radisson Hotels yet. But Rezidor Hotel Group and Carlson Hotels should be stand-alone articles for "defunct" company, as their corporate identities were stripped to became Radisson Hospitality AB and Radisson Hospitality Inc, the legal names of Radisson Hotel Group. The "parent article " of Carlson Hotels should be Carlson Companies, while Rezidor Hotel Group had no "parent article", as it was owned by SAS and then Carlson Hotels (increase from just 25% to 50%). Matthew hk (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 17 January 2019" and sign the post for you.

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

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

Requesting multiple page moves

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

{{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 17 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:25, 17 January 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 17 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:25, 17 January 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 17 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section 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 17 January 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:25, 17 January 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 17 January 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Commenting in a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing instructions

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


Relisting 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 up to three times.

Current discussions

This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 44 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

January 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)Jim Taylor (American football)Jim Taylor (running back) – Current title is ambiguous with the other American football player, which is titled Jim Taylor (tackle). The guideline Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Gridiron_football advises to disambiguate by position (In situations where there are two or more people who played gridiron football but they played different positions, use the name of the position they played.) I chose to not boldly move as some might want to argue that # The running back is the most notable American football player # The disambiguator should be "fullback" instead of generic "running back" # Can disambiguate instead between playing levels with the tackle being "college football", having never played pro. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)SolarStrikerSolar Striker – The title is "Solar Striker" and is referred to as that throughout the text. "SolarStriker" is just a stylization of the title and should not be the name for the Wikipedia page. Thank you. Bchill53 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Huron University CollegeHuron University – This name change is being requested as the university has rebranded from Huron University College to Huron University. Because of this change, users may become confused not only domestically but internationally, when searching for Huron University and another name shows. JonMunnCan (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Here Be Dragons (company)DIVISION7 – The name of this company is no longer Here Be Dragons. now redirects to, and company credits that were once attributed to Here Be Dragons are now attributed to DIVISION7. I declare a COI as a former company employee but it is important to provide the right information surrounding a company's legal name and misleading to state that Here Be Dragons as a company still exists. Gabbybrownnyc (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Repercussions of the 1994 United States broadcast TV realignmentRepercussions of the 1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment – The affiliation changes stemming from and including the Fox-New World agreement took place over the course of two to three years; as such, specifying a time span would be appropriate. Given that an additional affiliation changes related to a transaction stemming from the Fox-New World agreement took place in early 1997 (i.e., WJXX's sign-on and assumption of the ABC affiliation in Jacksonville, Florida from WJKS), "Repercussions of the 1994–97 United States broadcast TV realignment" may also be acceptable as a new title for the article. TVTonightOKC 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1994 United States broadcast TV realignment1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment – The affiliation changes stemming from and including the Fox-New World agreement took place over the course of two to three years; as such, specifying a time span would be appropriate. Given that an additional affiliation changes related to a transaction stemming from the Fox-New World agreement took place in early 1997 (i.e., WJXX's sign-on and assumption of the ABC affiliation in Jacksonville, Florida from WJKS), "1994–97 United States broadcast TV realignment" may also be acceptable as a new title for the article. TVTonightOKC 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Char LeclercLeclerc – Char Leclerc is not a correct designation. "Char" is just french for "tank". Correct designation can be found at Nexter Group official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemist (talkcontribs) 12:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imagingPET-MR – Change to the more common and simple name. No one would use the full "Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging" to refer to this technique unless specifically spelling out the definition, likely to a technical audience. Most patients will hear about or be told they are going into a PET-MR (or perhaps PET-MRI) machine, as they would be told they are having a PET scan or MR scan. Even amongst a technical audience the full name would be rarely used. This would also bring this article in line with the very similar PET-CT (matching this article is also why I would suggest PET-MR rather than PET/MR, which I think better indicates the two are used together, rather than as alternatives) Beevil (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tia MowryTia Mowry-Hardrict – I would like more opinions on this one. Subject has been substantially credited by, and has been referred to in sourcing, by her married name since at least 2011 – e.g. EW in early 2011, Variety in 2013. However, I also notice a trend in the last year or two for secondary sourcing to refer to subject as simply "Tia Mowry" again, and the recent Netflix announcement for their new TV series Family Reunion[4] – also is just "Tia Mowry". So I can't tell if this is a WP:NAMECHANGES situation or not. So this RM is to gauge wider consensus on the issue... --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 15, 2019

  • (Discuss)@world record egg → ? – I feel as though this page's current title doesn't accurately reflect what the subject of this article is. I don't think this article should be about the Instagram account itself. The old title without the "@" also doesn't quite fit.  Nixinova  T  C  21:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Unindicted co-conspiratorCo-conspirator – This article is unnecessarily narrow. If we remove "unindicted" from the title, then we can more broadly address the status of co-conspirators, whether indicted or not, and treat the unindicted variation as a large subsection of the article. bd2412 T 19:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Uusimaa BrigadeNyland Brigade – Nyland Brigade seems to be the name used in English in official sources, at least since some time (see discussion above). The language of the brigade is Swedish, so using the Finnish name of the region is controversial. The official name of the brigade is "Nylands brigad". LPfi (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wight (disambiguation)Wight – DAB from the various meanings listed at the DAB page. While this does receive significantly more views than the surname and Dungeons & Dragons, the Isle of Wight gets many more and is a level 5 vital article.[[5]] Apart from the WP article and Collins Dictionary the Isle of Wight appears to come up almost entierly in page after page of Google results. A Google Book search also shows nearly all results for the island and also the one in Virginia. I don't think that the island is primary since I think its unlikely people searching in an encyclopedia (as opposed to a search engine) would use just "Wight" but the searches would at least suggest no primary topic. The DAB page includes "Wight" as a region of the English Channel (which is just a link to another article and thus doesn't have views). Isle of Gigha, Isle of Mull, Isle of Noss, Isle of Raasay and Isle of Skye don't include the "Isle of..." prefix in the article names even though its on the OS (although there is an open RM for Noss). The target matches Brownie (folklore) but maybe Wight (creature) would be better. There has also been discussion at Talk:Wight about merges and disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Terror (disambiguation)Terror – There has been some back and forth recently over whether this title should point to Fear or the disambiguation page (which it can not do per WP:MALPLACED). Having worked on some of the incoming links, I believe that the disambiguation page should be moved to this title, as ambiguity has grown over the distinction between "terror" as merely an extreme kind of fear, and "terror" as the political tool which serves as the root of Terrorism. bd2412 T 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

January 14, 2019

  • (Discuss)Baked Alaska (entertainer)Tim Gionet – There is no source for the current disambiguator, "entertainer", and the term isn't even found in the article. Instead the subject is referred to consistently as "Gionet" throughout the article, which implies that there is a consensus to use his real name. Bradv🍁 22:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mathew L. Golsteyn → ? – There was a fairly controversial discussion earlier about deleting this page. The discussion did not reach consensus, but many folks leaned towards turning this into an event page per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLP1E. I am thus opening this RM to propose renaming and refocusing the page on the incident and continuing aftermath/developments. I'm not sure what the new name should be, and am looking for suggestions/consensus. Perhaps something along the lines of Operation Moshtarak murder, Investigation of Mathew L. Golsteyn, Operation Moshtarak Green Beret incident and so on... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vesper batVespertilionidae – The most common, accessible, verifiable and neutral name for the family Vespertilionidae is Vespertilionidae. Four names, terms or descriptions are used in English sources to loosely refer to vespertilionids, vespertilionids, evening bats and vesper bats, the fourth is the reference to Grays description of an arrangement as family Vespertilionidae, and this name is what the article is about and this name is what authorities use to this day. cygnis insignis 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute2018 Japanese–South Korean naval dispute – The name discussed in the previous discussion was changed to another name because of WP:precision claiming. But this name is still controversial and not precise in terms of inclusiveness. there are multiple points of dispute:
    1. Did South Korean Destroyer locked on JMSDF's Maritime Patrol Aircraft?
    2. Did Japanese JMSDF Patrol Aircraft threat South korean destroyer by low-altitude flying, which operating rescue?
    and so trivial arguments on. And now each party denies the others' claim. In summary, it's better to name 2018 Japanese-South Korean naval dispute, because it includes multiple points of dispute and more precise to a current situation in terms of inclusiveness. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)San Jose Clash v D.C. United (April 1996)Inaugural Major League Soccer match – Seeing as this event is only notable as being the first MLS game, I think the title should reflect that. Per the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the proposed name greatly increases the recognisability by describing what the article is really about. The proposal is also more natural due to how it can be used in prose and it also eliminates the disambiguation. There may be a slightly different version of the proposal that could be better (e.g. "First MLS game", etc). BLAIXX 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LamyatLamyatt – This is the name of the village and now its parish has been renamed to this also. The usual practice anyway is to use the name of the village and include facts about the parish, as opposed to using the name of the parish (if they have variants). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bird BoxBird Box (novel) – I don’t think that, especially after the release of the film, that this is the primary topic. Surely actual bird boxes are more primary as well. In any case, I think this move is an obvious response to the release of the much better known film. IWI (chat) 15:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Track DownTakedown (2000 film) – This film article was created on August 6, 2006 as Takedown (film). In 2009, following a very brief exchange between two editors ["Article name? (January 2009)"] above, the main title header was moved to Track Down. A substantially longer exchange, between one of those two editors and another editor ["Requested move (December 2009)"] above, was closed by the first editor with the words, "The result of the move request was Do not move" [the now-redlinked redirect Takedown (film) was deleted seven-and-a-half years later]. The article currently has a lengthy hatnote [which would be deleted if the nomination gains support]: "This article is about the 2000 film. For the 1976 film, see Trackdown (film). For the 1979 film, see Take Down (1979 film)", while the film's title on the poster appended to the article as well in references such as IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes or [ The Movie Database], appears as "Takedown". The form Track Down comes from the U.S. DVD release title.     Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 04:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 13, 2019

  • (Discuss)BirdsallBirdsall (surname) – DAB from the places (of which there are more), they probably have more long-term significance than the surname. A Google search doesn't show any results for the surname or anyone with it. The surname originates from the place in Yorkshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TziaosChatos – The current name is a relatively obscure rendering of the town's name, based on a mispronunciation, unrecognisable to a modern audience. This is the more common rendering, and this can be seen in Google Books search results. GGT (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Strong Arms of the MaThe Strong Arms of the Ma – ConspiricyStuff points out from two websites that the word 'The' should be included in it's title. I also have the DVD for this season which has the requested title as it is on the booklet. This RM is also to prevent page history split. Iggy (Swan) 00:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

January 12, 2019

  • (Discuss)Government shutdowns in the United StatesGovernment shutdown – Classic WP:INUSA problem. Is there another topic called "government shutdown" that we have encyclopedic coverage of? It doesn't seem so. If shutdowns are unique to the American political system, which appears to be the case—the article mentions the occurrence is "nearly impossible in other forms of government"—the "in the United States" is unnecessarily wordy. If not, redirecting "government shutdown" here shows American WP:BIAS. --BDD (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)(486958) 2014 MU69Ultima Thule (asteroid) – The powers that be (in this case, the mass media) have spoken through their widespread decision to reference this object in news headlines and article text as "Ultima Thule"; I just finished watching a NOVA special that probably used that name fifty times in an hour. Within the space of a few days, literally millions of sources referring to the object by this name (many solely by this name) have popped up. Notwithstanding the abortive move request initiated and withdrawn in a few days ago, it is highly unlikely that the object will go back to being commonly known by a numerical designation. bd2412 T 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

January 11, 2019

  • (Discuss)Lunar phase → ? – The current title seems to not be popular. I am suggesting to change the article title to either Phase of the moon or Moon phase because these titles seem to be popular. Check out this Ngram Viewer here. Also, when you do a search for lunar phase here, most of the results show up as Moon phase. Mstrojny (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Water wellWell – Water well would appear to serve as the primary meaning of the structure (and possibly a broad concept article) and apart from the adverb and adjective that probably would be difficult to assign an article to (however we do have a DAB at Wellness which may serve that function) this would be most people's understanding of "Well". See discussion at User talk:BD2412#Well. The other types of wells appear to be less common and are known by their full name (eg Oil well). The other uses of "Well" are a few small places and a few "arts" topics that probably wouldn't be expected to be at the base name anyway. Water well shows up first in a WP search from Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BP (disambiguation)BP – BP links directly to the article on British Petroleum, but BP is also used in science - Geology, Evolution, .. - to indicate "Before Present"; so when someone inserts a BP link, shouldn't it be triggered that the author makes a choice to which BP ? Thy SvenAERTS (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alan Kaufman (writer)Alan KaufmanWP:PTOPIC. This was moved in October 2014 as there being no primary topic, but in my Google books search, "Alan S. Kaufman" the psychologist is always referred to as such and "Alan Kaufman" the writer on other topics. The page views are that Alan S. is viewed about twice as much as all others combined, but without him, Alan Kaufman (writer) would be clearly the primary topic: Allen Kaufman gets only a trickle of hits and the DAB itself even fewer. All three entries are also at the disambiguation page Kaufmann, and the two Alans hatnote each other. (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Trump administration family separation policyTrump Administration Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy – The name appears inappropriate, with various neutrality issues as well as the title appearing to be factually inaccurate - there was never an explicit "Family Separation Policy", and though that might have been the effect of a policy, that should be discussed within an article about the policy, and split into its own article only if the article in question has become too long and a split at that point is appropriate. As such, I am proposing the name is changed to something more neutral, referencing the actual policy, "Zero Tolerance". I will note that I am not wedded to the proposed name; I believe that both it and the current name are a bit unwieldy, and a more concise way to state it would be appreciated. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Handeni Town CouncilHandeni – The article is about the town as a population centre, not specifically its administrative body. Handeni currently redirects to Handeni District which is composed of the rural areas surrounding the town of Handeni, and is governed by a separate district council which should not be considered the primary topic of the word. Cobblet (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Masasi Town CouncilMasasi – The article is about the town as a population centre, not specifically its administrative body. Masasi currently redirects to Masasi District which is composed of the rural areas surrounding the town of Masasi, and is governed by a separate district council which should not be considered the primary topic of the word. Cobblet (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shattered (Turn the Car Around)Shattered (O.A.R. song) – The song title is listed in Wikipedia as Shattered (Turn the Car Around), but this name is not universally used. AllMusic lists the track title just as "Shattered". This move is contested, as one user moved the article title to what is being proposed, and another user moved it back. Mburrell (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shattered (song)Shattered (The Rolling Stones song) – There are several songs with the song title of "Shattered". There is another with a Wikipedia article, Shattered (O.A.R. song). Although Rolling Stones song is very well known, it probably not the defining subject for the song title, so it should be disambiguated. One user already moved it to the proposed song title, and another user moved it back, so the move is contested and needs to be discussed. Mburrell (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 10, 2019

  • (Discuss)Kyle EdwardsArda Ocal – Kyle Edwards was a stage name given to Arda Ocal at WWE and used for a duration of two years. Between his work at ESPN, NBC Sports, TRT World The Score Televiosn Network / Aftermath and more, all under the name Arda Ocal, Kyle Edwards is a misleading header for this entry. While it should be noted in it's use during his time in WWE, Arda Ocal is the more prominent name used publicly in his career. Ardaocal (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mustafabad, HaryanaSaraswati Nagar – The old name Mustafabad was officially changed to the ancient name "Saraswati Nagar" in 2016 by the state government. In case the requested new namespace "Saraswati Nagar" is not available then move it to "Saraswati Nagar, Haryana" namespace. Thanks. (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)British ChampionshipsBritish Championship – There can be no primary topic for the general phrase "British Championship/s", as it could apply broadly to a vast number of competitions. # The ice hockey champions information is inappropriately occupying the primary topic for such a generic phrase. I can find no reliable source that describes this competition clearly as "British Championship", so I'll leave it to knowledgeable editors to suggest a better alternate destination title. This page may also duplicate information on the British ice hockey league champions page, and might be more prime for merging. # The second move is to reflect that most entries listed on the British Championships DAB page are in the singular. -- Netoholic @ 10:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)SakastanSakastan (Sasanian Province) – Sakastan was also another name for Sistan, and had existed as a region/province (since its invasion by the Saka in the 2nd-century BC, thus the name Saka(stan)) before the Sasanians, hence I want this moved to avoid confusion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) – I suggest moving this page to "Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer)", or "Ian Watkins (rock musician)" so that a wider variety of people know what Ian David Karslake Watkins does before they click on the page. I know that this was discussed in August 2018, but I feel that there should be a better disambiguator for this person that denotes occupation, whose function will be much better known than the band name. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ice resurfacerZamboni – This machine is almost universally called a "Zamboni". The second sentence of the article acknowledges this fact. The generic term "ice resurfacer" makes logical sense, but is clearly not the common name. As with "Jet ski" or "Hovercraft" (both brand names), this is another case where people barely know what the generic object is actually called, and simply use the brand name to refer to all models of it. Same is true with the Zamboni. Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


See also