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

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

  • there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);
  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 11 November 2019" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request is made for a page that is not the subject page of the talk page on which the request must be made. An example would be to make a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources|new1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}
and generally:
{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

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

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

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

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

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

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 11 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 18:51, 11 November 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 11 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 18:51, 11 November 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 11 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Any additional comments:

This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 11 November 2019

– why Example (talk) 18:51, 11 November 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 11 November 2019

– why Example (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

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

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which 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}} or {{Mdn}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 19 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

November 11, 2019

  • (Discuss)Procurator of St Mark'sProcurators of Saint Mark – Suggest that the page currently entitled "Procurator of Saint Mark's" be amended to "Procurators of Saint Mark". Admittedly, the Italian could be translated either way. But I looked at several sources by major English-speaking historians, and I find it only as "Procurators of Saint Mark", without the genitive. Venicescapes (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Coat (animal)Animal coat – Per WP:NATURAL and because the current disambiguation is confusing (a coat is not an animal, it's a trait of an animal). There is the possibility it could be confused with "coats for animals", but this one could too, so that doesn't really change anything. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 10, 2019

  • (Discuss)Backpacking (travel)Backpacker tourism – This moved was previously performed unilaterally by User:Wikieditor600, with the reason given as "Correct terminology". But (1) the move was incomplete as it failed to rename the talk page, and (2) I think this warrants prior discussion. I've reverted the move, and filed it as an RM instead. I'm nominating this procedurally and abstain from !voting. Paul_012 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)S'gaw Karen languageKaren language – S'gaw Karen is a term that no one uses. When people talk about Karen language, they are referring to S'gaw Karen however it confuses people when they search for Karen language, Karenic languages will show up at the a answer but that's not what are they are looking for. Karenic languages is the family language that the Karen language fall into. There are many other Karenic languages such as Pa'O, Pwo, Bwe, etc. So we would like the page name to change to Karen language so it'll be less confusing when people search for Karen language (individual language and not the language which is Karenic languages). Jaeminlovetaejoon (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Claris ImpactClarisImpact – Having worked on the team at Claris that created this software (Instructional Designer), I have first-hand knowledge of the application's name. Here is another reference to the correct name: [1]. Trlloyd60 04:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Flan (disambiguation)Flan – For some years, there has been confusion about the Flan article, because flan in UK English is a class of tarts or pies, including for example quiche lorraine, whereas in US English, it has come to be a synonym for Crème caramel, because that is what flan means in Spanish, and the Latin American versions of flan have become popular in the US. The old solution was to have the Crème caramel article include flan in the Spanish/US sense, and flan be flan in the UK sense. But this seems to be an unstable solution. So I proposed reorganizing the pages on Talk:Flan a few weeks ago, with no objections. The reorganization merges the Spanish-language flan content into crème caramel, moves the UK flan content to Flan (pie), and makes Flan into a dab page. Currently it redirects to this dab page, but it would be cleaner to move Flan (disambiguation) to Flan. Macrakis (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 9, 2019

  • (Discuss)Crow-stepped gableStepped gable – I have never ever heard of a "crow-stepped" gable, and I can't figure out what it even means. There is no derivation explaining any "crow-ness" in the article. The term I know is common in the U.S., and I presume worldwide, is "Stepped gable", which is given as an alternate in the lede. In the U.S. stepped gables were brought by immigrants from the Netherlands, Germany, Dnemark etc., and turn out to be well-suited in some areas but do poorly in freeze-and-thaw weather of upstate New York, for example. (Also, by the way, there are frequently much less steep steps than in the photos shown, so balance on that is needed too.) I request move to simpler, more universally known, clear term. Doncram (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Theosophy (Boehmian)Christian theosophy – Move was the original name of this article, and we should revert to that. It is also the primary term used in reliable sources. Faivre is the greatest authority on this topic area, and he uses by a large margin the term Christian theosophy. When he (rarely) uses the term Boehmenist Theosophy, he talks about Jacob Boehme, not about Christian theosophy in general. Same with other scholars like Versluis. It was the original name of this article for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

November 8, 2019

  • (Discuss)Luiz Inácio Lula da SilvaLula – Per section above, Lula is not part of his name but a nickname. "Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva" is a ridiculous construction. It should either be "Luiz Inácio da Silva" or just "Lula". – PeeJay 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)UnfurlUnfurl (album) – I see this Australian artist is known in Belgium. If this was a Lady Gaga album fair enough, but letting a non notable album squat over a common term isn't helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)La Grande IllusionGrand Illusion (film) – Well. I am aware that at this point, it's a pretty cocky move from my part but I'm still going to give it a go. I think this is more of a UK vs US thing that what it initially seemed to be. Since this has already been the subject of an extensive discussion before, it would perhaps be better to first state the points regarding why I don't agree with the previous consensus. Cinema Clown (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Theosophy (Blavatskian)Theosophy – Move was the original name of this article, and we should revert to that. Theosophy (Blavatskian) is problematic as page title, since the article makes clear that the founders of Theosophy included more people than just Blavatsky (Henry Steel Olcott, W.Q. Judge), and other persons have greatly contributed and defined or redefined Theosophy, like Alice Bailey and many others. Reliable sources, including virtually all encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion or The Encyclopedia of World Religions, when using this term, primarly use it to mean the modern theosophical movement (and of course in common parlance, it is used in this way) Theosophy, which was the original name of this article for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion to this problematic title. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Table-glassFaceted glass – The article has been somewhat better sourced through the AfD discussion, and lots of better names have been proposed. "Faceted glass" is a literal translation from the Russian and a perfectly plausible English description, so maybe it's best. If not, propose alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nondeterministic algorithmNondeterministic computation – The present title is clearly ambiguous as shown in the preceding thread of this talk page, and the disambiguation hatnote that I have added to the article. The proposed title is much clearer as referring to effective computation (the subject of the article rather than to abstract algorithms. D.Lazard (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dhami, NepalGhami, Nepal – The correct name of this place is Ghami, Nepal. Please check the report issued by District Development Committee Mustang. The name should also be corrected in other Wikipedias as well. Nirajan pant (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ninth CrusadeLord Edward's crusade – This is not the common name of this crusade. "Lord Edward's crusade" is used by Simon Lloyd in an article dedicated to it (see Further reading), by the ODNB and by numerous other sources. It isn't hard to see why: this was not a separate event from the Eighth Crusade (Louis IX's second, the Tunis crusade). It was a continuation of that crusade by an army which showed up late. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bardi peopleBardi, or Bardi people – Having encountered a lot of references to the "Bardi" and "Bardi Jawa" people when needing to add a link from another page and finding this one, it seemed evident to me that the common spelling of these people is Bardi - so I started editing the article in preparation for a simple move. However have run into problems because of the Bardi DAB page and because of the previous "Bardi people" merge. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

November 7, 2019

  • (Discuss)Priestly BlessingPriestly blessing – Apparently this is about a priestly blessing, not a work whose proper name is "Priestly Blessing". Therefore the capitalisation should be changed to reflect this. JIP | Talk 11:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pell GrantPell grant – This is not a proper noun. It is a type of grant, not one specific grant. See the RM discussions at Talk:Personal equity plan, Talk:Individual savings account, and Talk:Tax-free savings account. As the proper noun article says, "a class of entities" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Some writers use capital letters to indicate any special string of words or anything to be abbreviated with initials, but Wikipedia's convention is to use sentence case for topic names instead. The second sentence of the article says "Federal Pell Grants are ..." If it's plural, it's not a proper noun (with few exceptions, as with the Hendersons, the Everglades, the Azores, the Pleiades). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Juan David Castaño MontoyaLlane – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be the name that the artist uses professionally and is commonly known by. It can be seen that the reliable sources used in the article, both in English and in Spanish, refer to the artist as Llane, and not by his birth name. His debut single has been released and has charted under the name Llane. His own social media uses the name Llane [2]. Richard3120 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Climate change (general concept)Climate change throughout history – I haven't stopped thinking about this move and how it just seemed like there must have been a better title than this unNATURAL disaster. (Haha, unnatural disaster, just like modern climate change!) What about "Climate change throughout history?" I know that this is technically a misnomer as history is supposed to be "what humans have recorded", but even our article on the Milky Way uses the word in a less literal sense to mean "the past up until now". Regardless of what you decide, this article isn't going to be at a perfect title, but we never want to use parenthetical disambiguation when a descriptive title is available. I do think that this proposed title follows our naming conventions well and is much more transparent than "(general concept)". I am only proposing this; I leave it to you to decide. Red Slash 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)University Hospitals of ClevelandUniversity Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center – This page seems to focus more on the flagship hospital than the parent health system. It has an infobox for a hospital rather than an organization. Discussion of the health system can still occur under the new name, keeping the lead and infobox focused on the hospital. An alternative name would be simply Cleveland Medical Center (which currently redirects to this page, though the "University Hospitals" preface is consistent with the existing page for another hospital in the system, University Hospitals Portage Medical Center. It seems odd the flagship hospital does not have its own page, while a smaller satellite hospital does. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

November 6, 2019

  • (Discuss)Rainmaker StudiosMainframe Studios – As of October 11, 2019, the Rainmaker Studios branding has been ditched for an overall re-brand as Mainframe Studios: "Originally founded as Mainframe Entertainment, we operated under the name Rainmaker Entertainment for over a decade, but we’ve now returned to our roots." If you go to, it re-directs you to Mainframe Studios currently acts as a re-direct to this page, so I'm not clear on how we should rename it. Move all the content from here to the re-direct and then make Rainmaker Studios a re-direct page? Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Selecta (vending company) → ? – Selecta is no longer just a vending machine company, and has not been for a number of years - vending machines are only one small part of their offering, so I wonder if this descriptor in the title is a little misleading? I would appreciate your thoughts. Selecta does still operate a number of public, semi-public and private vending machines, but a large part of the business is now in self-service coffee machines and self-service food on the go choices in workplaces (but these aren't vending machines, they are more like 24/7 self-service supermarkets offering healthy meals, snacks and drinks, which are housed within a workplace office). 'Selecta Group' or 'Selecta (unattended self-service retailer)' may be more appropriate? Or even just 'Selecta (self-service retailer)'? Many thanks for your consideration. EmilyRH31 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Linux on Z SystemsLinux on IBM Z – The page starts out with "Linux on IBM Z ... is the collective term...", and IBM's term for the mainframe line is now just "IBM Z", not "IBM z/Systems" or "IBM System z". Guy Harris (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)War against Islam conspiracy theory → ? – According to the just-closed AFD, the current title of the article may be inappropriate as the topic may not be a "conspiracy theory" or known as such. Since we don't settle article naming discussions at AFD and there was no consensus there on a replacement title, I'll begin a proper name discussion here. Pinging the four participants of the AFD @Steve Quinn, EastTN, MarginalCost, and Doug Weller: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Set screwGrub screw – The term "set screw" has different applications in different countries. In the US it commonly refers to a grub screw or similar small-headed or headless bolt. In the UK it refers to a normal-headed bolt (often, but not only hex) with a fully-threaded shank. I believe that Australia and New Zealand follow the UK terminology, at least some of the time. On the other hand, there is no confusion about the term "grub screw"; so far as I'm aware everywhere understands it as a headless type of bolt. Lithopsian (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Beru IslandBeru – Beru is not an island and it is never named “Beru Island” (not in the Constitution of 1979, not in the medias, not in the sources). Beru is an atoll. And the other homonyms with Beru are not so relevant. Arorae (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

November 5, 2019

  • (Discuss)WikiaFandom (website) – As of August 2019 the legal name of Wikia Inc. changed to Fandom Inc. Basically everything is run under the name Fandom by now and the wikis moved to (except for the wikis that don't really work as a "Fandom" which moved to Because of that it would be better to move the article to Fandom, as Wikia is no longer the correct name. MarkusRost (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Female slavery in the United StatesEnslaved women in the US – Article was moved to Enslaved women in the US but has since been reverted back to Female slavery in the US. The request is to maintain the title as Enslaved women in the US because it restores identity and context to the individuals who were enslaved. The terms enslaved shows that the individuals were forcibly reduced to the positions of enslavement; the linguistic nature of enslaved portrays individuals as people who were acted upon, not as objects. The term slavery and slave reduce individuals the commodity they were considered and removes their humanity and identity as people from the enslaved individuals. Mgregg21 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Orlando, FloridaOrlando – The only notable "Orlando" is this "Orlando". Other major cities, even those with smaller populations, are only referred to by the name of their city (see, for example Cincinnati). In addition, the widely accepted name for the city is just "Orlando". As per our naming conventions, we should call it by its accepted name. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fuck It Up (Iggy Azalea song)Fuck It UpFuck It Up was created in 2006 as a redirect to the Blood, Sweat and Towers song, but since then, two other songs with the same name have been released. Because of this, I changed Fuck It Up to a disambiguation page to cover all three songs. I was not aware at that time that the Iggy Azalea song already had an independent article. Since this is the only article with this title, I do not think the disambiguation is necessary. I tried moving it on my own, but I could not. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gay male speechGay speech – It appears that "gay speech" is more widely used in the sources and scholarly literature than "gay male speech". Furthermore, "gay" as opposed to "gay male" is the common name for gay men's-related articles on Wikipedia. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 4, 2019

  • (Discuss)European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019Benn Act – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Both media outlets and academics [3][4] use this as their main title, noting that it is not its official name. Using the official short name is just confusing for our readers. We should not confuse our readers. Note that WP:NCGAL says Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. before saying that short titles are preferred over long titles. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sophie (musician)SOPHIE – The relevant guideline is WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." Among the works currently cited in the article's references section, 'Sophie' appears 14 times, and 'SOPHIE' appears 36 times. If we exclude primary sources (Twitter, Transgressive Records, Billboard charts, Soundhound, Apple Music), the count becomes 32 to 10 in favour of SOPHIE. I think this satisfies the "demonstrably most common" standard (it also has the advantage of being natural disambiguation). There is also the matter of whether this is the primary topic for SOPHIE. The only other topic at Sophie (disambiguation) which is commonly rendered in all caps is SOPHIE échelle spectrograph. The musical artist gets 200x as many views as that article. Colin M (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Palestinian territoriesPalestinian territory – Before 1999, the UN and the majority of international organizations frequently referred to the Palestinian territories but this has changed over time as described (with sources) in the article lead, the customary usage now being "Occupied Palestine Territory" (OPT or oPt in short form). A current example of this usage is given in this 2016 UN document, "United Nations Country Team Occupied Palestinian Territory" which includes the following definition at page 9:

    “Palestine”, “State of Palestine”, “occupied Palestinian territory”: In this report the terms “Palestine”, the “State of Palestine” and “occupied Palestinian Territory” have been used interchangeably depending on context. Specifically the term “occupied Palestinian territory” refers as a whole to the geographical area of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

    Apart from the usage by the UN, the EU and the ICJ already mentioned in the lead, the term is also used, for example, by Oxfam, WHO and Amnesty. A google search on the term will reveal multiple primary and secondary usage. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Portal:ContentsWikipedia:Contents – By Portal:Contents read the portal, its subpages and Portal:Featured content. In fact Portal:Contents has never been considered a portal. Ignored by the policy related to portals (WP:PORTAL, WP:POG, WP:P/I and WP:WPPORT) and having a totally different layout. Portal:Contents was not initially created as a portal but moved to the portal space [5], I did not find discussions that endorsed this movement. The discussion raised is not the simple move, but whether Portal:Contents will be worked as a portal (linked in articles, treated by WP: PORTAL and the possibility of creating similar new portals).

Previous discussions *Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Redundant Portal:Contents subpages *Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 13#Redundancy between Portal:Contents subpages and portals Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "ClarisImpact 2.0". Macintosh Repository. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
  2. ^ "国宝・重要文化財(建造物)如庵" [national treasure and Important Cultural Property]. The Agency for Cultural Affairs.

See also