Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.) Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

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

When not to use this pageEdit

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

Undiscussed movesEdit

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

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

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical movesEdit

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • 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.

Uncontroversial technical requestsEdit

Contested technical requestsEdit

Requests to revert undiscussed movesEdit

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial movesEdit

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page moveEdit

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 21 July 2017" and sign for you.

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page movesEdit

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

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

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

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

Commenting in a requested moveEdit

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructionsEdit

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.

RelistingEdit

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

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

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

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

Current discussionsEdit

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 35 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

July 21, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Miss Bum BumMiss Bumbum Brazil – (a) Sources cited use inconsistent spellings (Bumbum, BumBum, Bum Bum) and the spellings used in the article are inconsistent. The official website says "Miss Bumbum". I suggest we use that spelling in the title and throughout the text. (b) The article is about the Brazilian contest, but there are now contests in other countries, as at least one of the sources cited confirms. The official website calls the Brazilian contest "Miss Bumbum Brasil" but anglophone sources tend to use the English spelling "Brazil". This is consistent with WP:UE. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Orthopedic surgeryOrthopaedic surgery – Per WP:COMMONALITY; there is no WP:ENGVAR issue at stake, since orthopaedic institutions and publications in North America also prefer the ae spelling (an uncommon situation). That spelling is thus the actual WP:COMMONNAME in genuinely reliable sources; the e spelling is primarily used in news journalism and in signage, both of which focus on brevity above all. More detailed rationale below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hurricane Norman (1978)Hurricane Norman – There is the reason why i wanted to remove the year part of this storm and pointing out that is more prominent than any other Normans even it's not retired: *It's a Category 4! And probably the most intense based by 1-min winds of any Normans known. I don't know about it's pressure, it might be lower than 2000 version (South Hemisphere one, not the Northern Hemisphere one) or higher than it. *Last storm known to made landfall in California *Most damaging (and probably deadliest) of all Normans, with estimated damage of 300 million $s. There could be 21 deaths along with it, but i don't know! *Other Hurricane Norman of 1982 is a redirect. *The may-be notable recent incarnations of Normans that are TS such as 2000 and 2012 versions are in average page views (both are 1 and 2, respectively), it's isn't enough. As such i think they are less notable than the first incarnation of any Norman (average pageviews as of July 13, 2017 is 5). Thus, with all of this that's all reasons which i described for this one, i believe that this incarnation is really, and really a primary topic for good. SMB99thx XD (contribs) 08:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 10:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)E (Big Bang album)E (Big Bang single) – E (Big Bang album) is listed as an official single from the studio album Made (2016) and is classified as a single by its infobox. M, A, and D, are the articles about the singles from the same series. Hence, E (Big Bang album) should also be named a "single" accordingly. iTunes also classifies "E (Big Bang album)" as a single.[1] Alexataylor07 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 20, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)PSV EindhovenPSV – Many Dutch teams are known by their name and then the name of the city that they are in, ie Ajax Amsterdam, Vitesse Arnhem, Feyenoord Rotterdam, etc. These wikipedia articles do not have the city in the title of their names, so I don't see why this one should. There also shouldn't be much difference in the usage of either per WP:COMMONNAME. If people feel like since there is already a PSV disambiguation page so it would be easier just to leave it here, I am fine with that, however, I feel that it should be shorted to PSV in other articles just like other Dutch teams. Evertonfc13 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zathura (film)Zathura: A Space Adventure – The title of the film is Zathura: A Space Adventure, it was used in the opening credits from the film was released first in U.S. theaters and the same as the film's theatrical poster itself, as well as the IMDb website. 1.32.73.54 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC).
  • (Discuss)Çikatovë e VjeterStaro Čikatovo – Gbooks hits: *Staro Čikatovo (35): "Staro Cikatovo" (21), "Старо Чикатово" (12), "Staro Čikatovo" (2) *Çikatovë e Vjeter (5): "Cikatove e Vjeter" (4), "Çikatovë e Vjeter" (1) "Staro Čikatovo" is used 7 times more than "Çikatovë e Vjeter" in Gbooks.--Zoupan 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

July 19, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Génesis RodríguezGenesis Rodriguez – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Her own personal verified Twitter, verified Instagram and verified Facebook pages spells her name without the accented é and í and presume she knows how to spell her own name. IMDb reflects that and credits shown at IMDb for released projects have only a few credits using the accented vowels. Most articles in English that mention her on other pages reflect the lack of accents. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mercury EnergyMercury NZ – Incorrect company name, Mercury Energy merged with the parent company mighty River Power under the Mercury name in 2016. Propose Mercury NZ as the title because this is their official name and Mercury is already taken Elliott2705 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MMAMMA (disambiguation) – it is a disambiguation page which is incorrectly titled and taking the base name place. Assuming this move goes ahead, I afterwards plan to redirect 'MMA' to 'Mixed martial arts', which I believe is the primary topic for the term MMA. On the 'Mixed martial arts' page, I will link to the disambiguation page via a hatnote. Thanks. RickyBennison (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Columbia WharfDoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London - Docklands Riverside – As part of my job and as a long time "Wikipedia-er" is important to keep all the facts neutral and clear. I definitely do not intend to vandalize any article or information. In this article becomes clear that the building in question no longer exists and now is part of the hotel, which made me try to edit the title of the article. Searching around the web, results leads to information about the hotel: Search for Columbia Wharf However, the name of the building appears as a title, which is very confusing. As the information around the web presents the hotel instead of the building (because it was redeveloped to become a hotel), so it should be respected the most common name for the place. If any other ideas for improvements and clarification are more than helpful. Valgetova (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

July 18, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)Donald G. ReedDon Reed (comedian) – An IP editor claiming to be the subject of the article has removed "Donald Gene" from the first line of the text.[1] However, I'm not seeing anything on the internet to support "Donald Gene" or "Donald G." : Noyster (talk), 13:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)En Marche!La République En Marche! – Founding convention noted above occurred yesterday; renaming is official. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, this is the appropriate title as REM has seen disproportionate use compared to EM in published sources since the announcement of the renaming, and this title is therefore also appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Mélencron (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Etymology of PittsburghName of Pittsburgh – return to the article's former title as a more accurate representation of the article's content. The vast majority of the article is about the history of the name of Pittsburg(h). This is belated action on an earlier request above. —  AjaxSmack  02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 17, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)List of art mediumsList of art media – "Media" is preferred as the plural form of "medium" (over "mediums") in this sense by NOAD (and, I assume, other Oxford dictionaries), Dictionary.com, and Wiktionary. Additionally, "media" is used almost seventy times as much as "mediums" according to Ngram (though this search obviously spans all senses, not just art). Nloveladyallen (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tunnel RunningTunnel running – The article is about the practice of road rallies through tunnels, though most of the content is about a single club, the London Tunnel Runners, which is probably why it took the extra capital. London Tunnel Runners could be an alternative title though I feel it should be a redirect to this. Reidgreg (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Battle royal (gaming)Battle Royale (gaming) – While I was against this before, in the few months since, PUBG has gotten a huge amount of coverage and from that, discussions about this genre. It is now clear that Greene, in naming his original mods, took inspiration from the Battle Royale film/novel, and that name appears to be sticking more and more compared to the more "proper" battle royal. Note that this is for the title form "Battle Royale" and not "battle royale" - the use of the capital form reflects the origin of the film's influence on the generation. MASEM (t) 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sigla F.C.Team Socceroo F.C. – Reopening the move request. Perhaps I was not clear with my arguments for the move. Summarizing my arguments: *Sigla FC as Team Socceroo F.C. was notable as a participant in the country's de facto national league. *Sigla FC is not notable under its current incarnation. They only conduct football clinics and participate in open sunday league type of youth tournaments. I was the one who moved it to Sigla F.C. under the presumption they will remain in the national league under the new name but they did drop out from the league. To make an analogy - a hypothetical one and a highly improbable one.  :If Bayern Munich or FC Barcelona announced that they will be competing under a drastically different new name the next season and later decided to withdrew from the league and decided to solely compete in minor community-based weekend football leagues. Would we change the article names of the club? Or create new articles of the clubs' new incarnation? The claim of notability of the club, is its one of the participants of the now defunct United Football League. No one is going to talk about "Sigla FC competed in the UFL" without some disclaimer like "Sigla F.C. formerly/then known as Team Soccerooo". The article's content could be tweaked into this if moved back to Team Socceroo F.C. acknowledging the name change while putting more weight to its incarnation as Team Socceroo FC.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ben J. WattenbergBen Wattenberg – Previous attempt failed, so trying again with stronger arguments. This article should only be titled "Ben Wattenberg" because: * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Wattenberg hosted a PBS talk show for nearly 15 years titled Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, without the middle initial. * WP:COMMONNAME: ** There are nearly 29,000 google search results for "Ben Wattenberg" - but only around 14k for "Ben J. Wattenberg". ** In media appearances, he was usually addressed as just "Ben Wattenberg" - like in this 2008 Daily Show interview [2]. Also, most C-SPAN videos omit the initial [3]. ** Upon his passing, obituaries introduced him without the middle initial, such as The New York Times [4], Real Clear Politics [5], and American University's Current trade paper for public media [6]. However, The Washington Post obituary had the middle initial in the headline [7]. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 16, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)EIRSAT-1EIRSAT-1 – EIRSAT-1 stands for the Educational Irish Research SATellite-1 and therefore should be in block capitals. References to this can be found in numerous articles[2], [3] including those referenced in the article itself [4] Lanasalmon (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DnipropetrovskDnipro – We originally decided to wait several months before moving this article to see whether English usage would change. The evidence in the section above clearly demonstrates that English-language media are switching to "Dnipro". The media links from the preceding section on this Talk Page are from a number of English-speaking countries, on a wide variety of topics, in a wide range of contexts. In addition, reference works published since the official name change, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, are also switching. I opposed this move when the Rada first changed the name of the city, but I now support it because the trajectory of English usage is clear. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ian Paisley Jr.Ian Paisley Jr – I'm proposing this page be moved to Ian Paisley Jr for the sake of consistency among similar-titled articles. Per WP:TITLEVAR, this article is written in British English and so the title should conform to British English (which is to drop the dot after Jr). I previously moved the title to the proposed target, but another editor reverted the move, so I'm here to seek some consensus. st170e 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Usher (musician)Usher (singer) – In the previous RMs it was pointed out that similar artists have "musicians" as the disambiguator, this is not the case here. Those other artists had other roles in music (such as rap and production). Usher is only a singer, he has no other roles in music. Therefore, should be moved back to Usher (singer). I also propose "Usher Raymond" as an alternative option. Ddd23 (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.JFG talk 10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hillary Scott (singer)Hillary Scott – Overwhelmingly the primary topic for the term by any and all means. Firstly, pageviews show that people are overwhelmingly looking for the singer. Also, up to the 10th page of a Google search for ”Hillary Scott” does not return pages relating to anyone other than the singer, Last but not least, Google Books search for the name also does not reveal anything about Hillary Scott (actress), yes, the latter was created before the former, but there is no long-term significance in any case. PS there is no need for the dab to be retained per WP:TWODABS. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

July 15, 2017Edit

  • (Discuss)T.K. MaxxTK Maxx – Procedural nomination; move discussion opened, but not as an RM, by another editor. The basis for the request is that the official name of the company is "TK Maxx" despite their logo. Original proposal follows this RM template.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Military History (TV network)Military History (TV channel) – Article was previous moved for the reason of "moved page Military History (TV channel) to Military History (TV network): is a TV network by definition, a TV channel is what it is carried on or by, or the number on which it appears" which directly contradictory to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting). The naming convention indicates that on cable a network is a set of related channels "Viacom (corporation) operates the BET Networks (network) which provides its flagship BET (channel) and others, such as Centric." So in this case, A&E Networks owns the History network which operates the cable channels, History, Military History and History en Español. Spshu (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FC Steaua BucureștiFCSBRequest made by 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) at my talk page: "Hey! Can we request to change the name of FC Steaua București again? At the UEFA Champions League draw the club was referred to as FCSB.
    Third qualifying round draw (matches 25 & 26 July/1 & 2 August)
    League route
    FCSB (ROU) v Viktoria Plzeň (CZE)" GiantSnowman 07:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Roman KingdomRoman kingdom – There is no evidence that "Roman Kingdom" is a proper name for the early Roman state. It is, at best, a descriptive title. Therefore, we should use lower case. Srnec (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

July 14, 2017Edit

Elapsed listingsEdit

BacklogEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ "E - Single". iTunes. Retrieved 21 July 2017. 
  2. ^ https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/irelands-first-satellite-eirsat-1
  3. ^ http://www.ucd.ie/innovation/newsevents/news/2017/may/ucdtoleaddevelopmentofirelandsfirsteversatellite/
  4. ^ https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0523/877210-satellite/

See alsoEdit