Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. For route maps, see Wikipedia:Route diagram template.
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 our article titling policy and our 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, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page. To request such help, please see Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus. To place a formal request for a potentially controversial page move, please see Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

To contest a close, the Move review process 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 page[edit]


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

Requesting technical moves[edit]


The bold, revert, discuss cycle applies to uncontroversial moves (see Wikipedia:Be bold) and reverts of undiscussed moves. The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • 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.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete/revert the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in Uncontroversial technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.
  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history—if it has a single history line, see WP:MOR instead), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]


Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. 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, as 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[edit]

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

== Requested move ==
{{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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing 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 talk page section does not necessarily need to be named "Requested move", though it is suggested. If there have been previous move discussions on the talk page, use == Requested move xxxx == where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion. Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically.

As an alternative, you can click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and insert

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 26 July 2014", along with a location for survey and discussion. Also note that the template must be substituted. The template will automatically include your signature.

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations should not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the policy on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

Multiple related moves may be requested at once, using a single template. 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).

== Requested moves ==
{{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 default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any 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.


See also Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting

Relisting of a discussion moves the request out of the backlog (or wherever it is in the queue) up to the current day.

Relisting of a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given, to help focus further input. Relisting does imply another seven days of discussion. A relisted discussion, if over seven days old, or if revealing a consensus, may be closed at any time by another uninvolved experienced editor.

To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example), or the previous relisting comment. This gives the request a new timestamp which RMCD bot will use as the date to relist the entry on the requested moves project page. This can also be done by using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically.

If the discussion has become stale, or seems that it would benefit from the input of more editors, do not simply relist, but consider more widely publicising the discussion. Some editors will notify at least one relevant WikiProject of the discussion. The template {{RM notification}} could be useful for this. These WikiProjects can often be found by means of the banners placed at the top of many articles' talk pages.

Current discussions[edit]

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.

July 26, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Paul SharmaPhaldut Sharma – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Since 2012, the actor has been credited as Phaldut Sharma, rather than Paul Sharma, and because EastEnders is so popular, one could argue that it's his best known role (along with the voice role in Gravity, which was international) and therefore it would make 'Phaldut Sharma' the name he's best known by. –anemoneprojectors– 11:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Stewart Island / RakiuraStewart Island – The guideline WP:NCNZ#Dual and alternative place names says that we should use dual names (like "Stewart Island / Rakiura") "if there are sources which indicate that a dual name has usage beyond mandatory official usage". Google news search gives 0 (zero) results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura" [1], 65 results for "Stewart Island" and 60 for "Rakiura". Google Books search returns 6.310 results for "Stewart Island / Rakiura", but most are about the Rakiura National Park. When the "National Park" is excluded, there are 3.140 results [2]. On the other hands, Google Books returns 106.000 results for "Stewart Island", ("Rakiura" excluded)[3]. I think that this clearly shows that there is almost no usage of the dual name "beyond mandatory official usage". Vanjagenije (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Corporate lawBusiness corporation – This page is not about corporate law, it is about corporations (in the US sense of the term). It is about commercial enterprises. The content naturally refers to law but the topic is corporations. In the same way, article's on Contract and Tort are about those topics and not Contract law and Tort law which if they existed as article would be forks and in fact are redirects.As it happens the article corporation covers a much wider sense of corporation which includes state and non-governmental organisations with legal personality. This article is about for-profit, business corporations so I renamed it "Business corporation". This was the stable version for the last ten months If anyone thinks they have a better title I'd be glad to consider it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NorplantJadelle – Norplant is discontinued, and replaced with Jadelle, also called Norplant-2. However, when using the term Norplant it is unclear whether the discontinued Norplant or Norplant-2 is referred to. Therefore, I find it best to move this article to Jadelle. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Star TransportStar Leasing Services LLC – It is logical that this article be moved to its new name since it's partnership (or acquisition, I can't really tell) in 2013 by Swift Transportation. The move should be uncontroversial (hence I would have did it myself), but I wanted to get input from my peers on this.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Norleucine(2S)-2-aminohexanoic acid – Please refer to the following reference: Nomenclature and Symbolism For Amino Acids and Peptides. Pure and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp.595-624, 1984. Norleucine, while a common name for this compound, is in fact a complete misnomer, as discussed in the article. The approved naming convention would be to use the systematic name as it is short. Thus, having norleucine redirect to the systematic name is the most appropriate choice here. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Roland (disambiguation)Roland – The existing article Roland is about the historical military figure, but does not appear to be the primary topic. For example, in the last 90 days, that article has been viewed 23,805 times ([7]) but the musical instrument manufacturer Roland Corporation, whose logo and branding simply says "Roland", has been viewed 22,243 times, which is not much less ([8]). Since "Roland" is a person's name, it would be more natural for the disambiguation page to take preference as per Anne or Elizabeth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hey Man, Nice ShotHey Man Nice Shot – The page was initially created correctly with no comma in the song title. In 2012 it was moved to the current page, which is not correct. This user no longer has permission to move back to the desired page. Reversion would lose many user edits made since 2012. The song has never, in any format, been released with a comma in the title. Redrkr (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tamper-evidentTamper evidence – Article titles should be WP:NOUNs. "Tamper-evident packaging" would perhaps be a little narrow when the article also covers seals, markings and pure information, so suggesting "tamper evidence". McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grok (company)Numenta – From May 2013 until March 2014, Numenta was known as Grok. However, they are now known as Numenta again and the old site and press release announcing the name change have been taken down. Please restore the company name.[9][10] Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)New Entertainment R&D Dept.Amusement Vision – This article is the result of a bad merge in the past. New Entertainment R&D Dept. which the page is currently titled is only mentioned in the infobox, followed by "Amusement Vision" in Japanese. The article is clearly all about Amusement Vision, and provided it's moved, i'll make the corrections it needs to sort it out properly. Chopper Dave (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 23, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Delaware in the American Revolution → ? – this article should be renamed to "Delaware Line." since the ENTIRE article relates to defining this military concept. there is NO information here about the State of Delaware itself Sm8900 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Watkin Tudor JonesNinja (South African rapper) – Per WP:MOVES, I suggest re-opening the discussion of moving this page (previous discussion at ARCHIVED: Requested move) to the artists' preferred and more widely known name.

    Although it is true that he had numerous acts previous to Die Antwoord, and with them he had various aliases, all of that pales in comparison to the much larger impact he has had with Die Antwoord. This article needs to speak to the work that most people who come to this page know about, the reason they are here in the first place. Die Antwoord's videos garner youtube views in the tens of millions (this one alone has over 50 million views I Fink You Freaky), they have toured the globe multiple times, and their 2014 album went number one on the US Dance chart (as well as charting in seven other countries Die Antwoord - Studio Albums). Everything the artist did before Die Antwoord pales greatly in comparison, and should not be given equal billing. And his name should be the name he chose five years ago for working in his band Die Antwoord, namely, Ninja.

    Wikipedia makes it quite clear what action to take when addressing this situation (WP:STAGENAME), and I quote because it applies specifically to this case, "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name, .... If people published under one or more pen names and/or their own name, the best known of these names is chosen." Please note, it specifically says "one or more pen names", so the artist could have a hundred different aliases, but if he is best known as Ninja, which he is, then that is the name we are obligated to choose.

    Additionally, I would suggest that there be a single section in this article (or a separate article, if anyone feels that it is necessary to have separate articles for Ninja and Watkin Tudor Jones) with a more South African-centered point of view to talk about the artist's pre-Ninja work, work that most the rest of the world never knew about and, frankly, may not necessarily be interested in. There is room for that, but it shouldn't make up the lion's share of the article. I do not think people are coming to this article to be re-educated as to who the "real person" is behind Ninja, they are actually here to read something about Ninja, and there's a difference.
    MarcusParker (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alexis of RussiaAlexei of Russia – Right now, we have two different pairs of naming conventions with these three articles. On one hand, we have an Alexis and an Alexei, while on the other hand we have Michael I (not Michael) and Alexis (not Alexis I). We ought to have the "I" following both or neither tsars' names, and Алексе́й ought to be Alexis or Alexei both times; whether we use Alexei versus Mikhail is a completely different issue, so please don't bring that in. A simple search, even of scholarly literature, wouldn't be hugely helpful here, because it would quite possibly return results that discuss just one or the other: either we need to rely on sources that discuss both men, or we need to consider one-man results as applying to both. I've not read much scholarly stuff that discusses them, so I can't bring any solid examples to the table; all that comes to mind is Robert K. Massie's biography of Peter, in which both men are Alexis. I have no opinion on either pair of moves, i.e. I don't care whether they're both Alexis or Alexei and whether or not we include the "I" (the proposed new names up above are simply to ensure that the WP:RM bot doesn't get confused), as long as we have consistent transliteration of Алексе́й and consistent usage or non-usage of "I". Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Newari languageNepal Bhasa – The page was called Nepal Bhasa before a hostile move from non-contributing user. Nepal Bhasa is the official name of the language as per Government of Nepal (see image in the article). Nepal Bhasa is the common/standard name used by language regulating bodies in their publications, including Nepal Bhasa Academy, Nepal Bhasa Parishad, Tribhuwan University Central Department of Nepal Bhasa (the only higher academic institution of Nepal Bhasa studies in the world) and various organizations (Chwasa Pasa, Asha Archives, Pasa Pucha International, World Newah Organization, Newah Organization of America), media (Dharmodaya, Matina Internation magazine, The Rising Nepal, Image Channel, Nepalmandal, local FMs), mobile apps(Nepal Bhasa dictionary), journals (Journal of Newah Studies), Buddhist organizations and native speakers. The term "Newari" has been listed as pejorative term by Ethnologue (there is negative connotation associated with the term "Newari" in the native community). A majority of work on the language (in English, Nepal Bhasa, Nepali and Hindi) are yet not available online, primarily due to the digital divide. So, it is very hard to find stuffs about it online. However, a list of sources and links will be added below. Eukesh (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Speckled tortoiseHomopus signatus – It was recently discussed to move all the members of this genus to their scientific names and to keep it simple this was done under a previous move request for one of the other species. However this one was seen as controversal and must be discussed on its own. All the other members have already been moved to their scientific names. This genus has many common names and considerable disagreement about them as can be seen in previous discussions on the relevant talk pages and this one. For example Talk:Homopus and Talk:Homopus_femoralis. To finish this and tidy up this genus it is proposed this last species also be moved to its scientific name, which is stable and has been for some time, whereas the common names are regionally disputed and do not serve well. All available common names should be redirects to the scientific name. Faendalimas talk 03:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)HD 92139p Velorum – As seen in a SIMBAD search, the designation "p Velorum" is used much more often for this object than its HD designation, and thus should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME Unlike with some other Latin-letter Bayer designations, there is no star labeled "P Velorum", so no ambiguity can result from this move. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Janet (album)Janet. – The album is titled Janet., with a period, per its album cover and multiple sources including Vulture (which notes the proper pronunciation of the album is "Janet Period"), BET, Billboard, Rolling Stone (see the actual review, not just the listing at the top), and Allmusic amongst others. In September 2010, Nouse4aname moved this page citing MOS:TM, which says: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words ... or for normal punctuation." This period is none of the above - it is a part of the title, not solely for decoration, and according to sources it is pronounced.I wouldn't be opposed to Janet. (album) if the period is not considered strong enough disambiguation, but it should be noted that "Janet." is currently a redirect to this article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saint Paul Union DepotUnion Depot (Saint Paul) – Union Depot (Saint Paul) is the official listed name for this train station and supports the common name. Many people use this popular location for transit, events, restaurants, and tourist stops. Changing the name in important to make it less ambiguous for these people. (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Old Rouen tramwayTrams in Rouen – Current name of article is highly non-standard which makes it very hard to find when searching for it. Better name for the current article would be Trams in Rouen, which has evolved to the standard naming scheme used for articles on historical or long-standing city tram systems (e.g. Trams in Athens, Trams in Istanbul). (Please see the 'Discussion' section as to why Trams in Rouen is the preferred destination for this move of this article over Rouen tramway.) IJBall (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ángel di MaríaÁngel Di María – On 20 May 2010, Di María was moved to di María without any reasons. No reliable sources have been given since. The Google database just takes the name from Wikipedia and will be updated in a month or so after this page will have been moved. Real Madrid Website uses both ([11], [12]), but his official Twitter account uses exclusively a capital D, as well as the official site of the Argentine Soccer Assosiacion ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17] ...) and his FIFA profile and news. Komischn (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Neanderthal extinction hypothesesNeanderthal extinction – It's more to the point, precise, and concise in the context to the article's scope, Neanderthal extinction. That there are several hypotheses is besides the point, unless the nature of this article is more about those extinction hypotheses than the extinction itself. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Cold Season (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vanessa MinnilloVanessa Lachey – Since her marriage three years ago, she has made it clear that she doesn't want to use her maiden name when people refer to her professionally, in the media, etc. For instance, listings of talk show guests will by far refer to her now as Lachey, not Minnillo. Furthermore, she changed her name legally (see above section). Tinlinkin (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jordi FarragutGeorge Farragut – per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:UE (use English). The current title is very uncommon, the least common variant of Farragut's name. Google Books results can be used to gauge relative usage: 188 hits for "George Farragut", 66 hits for "Jorge Farragut", and a mere 9 hits for "Jordi Farragut". Here is an Ngram of the three names. The subject is primarily known for activities in the United States where he was and is known as George Farragut. —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 21, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Portal:HellenismosPortal:Hellenism – There is no consensus for the use of the name "Hellenismos" (see discussions here, here and here), and despite this it has been recently imposed to all the articles related to the topic by user Reigndog (see the recent moves of the main article). The problem of the name "Hellenismos" is that it is an odd neologism, created not reflecting English rules of suffix or rules of transliteration from Greek, as a hybrid Greek-English word. Furthermore, per WP:ENGLISH, English already has "Hellenism" as the traditional equivalent of Greek Ἑλληνισμός. Karl's Wagon (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Princess PearlMy Fair Princess – See the discussion above at #Title of drama should be My Fair Princess not Pincess Pearl!. Though the discussion above asserts that "Princess Pearl" is the international title, based on my research methinks it's not a title used in international TV channels. From the above discussion it seems that the origin of "Princess Pearl" is China Radio International ([18]), who probably translated the title without much research into what it is known in the English-speaking world (another problem is that "Princess Pearl" is not even an accurate translation; rather "Princess Returning Pearl" is, though "Princess Returned Pearl" is also accurate.) # China, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. - No English titles shown on TV that I know of.# In Singapore it was known as My Fair Princess in English, see archived news articles from Singapore. # In Malaysia it was also known as My Fair Princess in English, see the TV ad from NTV7# In the Philippines it was also known as My Fair Princess, see the TV ad from QTV# The 2011 remake is without question known as New My Fair Princess (see here, or just do a Google search or look at its posters/DVD covers). "New" is the Chinese way of saying it's a remake. As the remake had the same writer (Chiung Yao), executive producer (Jessie Ho Hsiu-chiung, her daughter-in-law), and production company (Hunan Broadcasting System) it makes no sense that the original and the remake had different English titles.A Google Books search also supports this usage outside of Southeast Asia, some examples: # Billboard (magazine): "Backed by popularity spawned a highly-successful television series "My Fair Princess," Mei Ah's Ruby Lin..."# China and Taiwan: Cross-strait Relations Under Chen Sui-bian: "Huanzhu Gege (My Fair Princess) is a Chinese TV series that caused a big sensation throughout Taiwan..."# Chinese Cyber Nationalism: Evolution, Characteristics, and Implications: "Zhao shot to fame in late 1990s with her role in a television series “Huan Zhu Ge Ge” (My Fair Princess)..."# Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity: "(Lin Xinru) who became very popular after a very successful TV series (huan zhu gege, 'My fair princess')..."# China's dilemma: the Taiwan issue: "Huanzhu Gege [My Fair Princess] is a Chinese TV series that had caused a big sensation throughout Taiwan..."# Return Migration and Identity: A Global Phenomenon, A Hong Kong Case: "There is increased interest in Mainland media, especially television soap operas like My Fair Princess, which has entranced Hong Kongers."# Only Hope: Coming of Age Under China's One-child Policy: "Yang Shu and Sun Wei loved "My Fair Princess" (Huanzhu Gege), a hit soap opera based on Taiwan writer Qiong Yao's..."# Feeling Asian Modernities: Transnational Consumption of Japanese TV Dramas: "Similar ratings wars took place in 1999 when ATV broadcast a Taiwan/mainland co-production “My Fair Princess"." # East Asian screen industries: "Zhao Wei, a mainland actress, was red-hot in the region with her appearance in the My Fair Princess television series (1998-9) a Taiwan-China co-production."# Tourism, anthropology and China: in memory of Professor Wang Zhusheng: "It is well known through the television series My Fair Princess (Huang Zhu Ge-ge) popular on the mainland, Taiwan, and Hong Kong."# Evolving On-line Empowerment: The Manchu Identity Revival Since the 1980s: "...Zaixiang LIU "Luoguo" (Chancellor Hunchbacked Liu), Huanzhu Gege (My Fair Princess)..."# AsiaCom: Asia-Pacific TV, Cable, Satellite, and Telecommunications, Volume 7I'm counting 12 titles. While there are 2 other books on Google Books that used both My Fair Princess and Princess Pearl, I was only able to find 8 titles that used Princess Pearl only (and surely some of them consulted Wikipedia). I think My Fair Princess wins even in printed media. An alternative would be to use a pinyin romanization of the original title, but I'm seeing 4 versions just from the above examples: "Huan Zhu Ge Ge", "Huanzhu Gege" "Huan Zhu Gege" and "Huang [sic] Zhu Ge-ge", (there could be a lot more) and I'm not even taking capitalization into account. Since there is an English version that is widely accepted (and that is My Fair Princess) let's use that. Timmyshin (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Edward VIIIEdward VIII of the United Kingdom – Prior to Victoria of the United Kingdom, all Wikipedia articles on British monarchs include in their titles "of the United Kingdom" (sovereigns between George III and George VI, inclusive), "of Great Britain" (sovereigns between Anne and George II, inclusive), or "of England" (sovereigns before Anne). The moves requested would help distinguish the monarchs in question from other royalty with their respective names, and maintain consistency with the most-often used Wikipedia titling convention. Today I made moves on pages allowed: (1) "Edward VII" became "Edward VII of the United Kingdom"; (2) "George V" became "George V of the United Kingdom; (3) "George VI" became "George VI of the United Kingdom. The three articles I am herein requesting to change are currently move-protected. Matthew David González 20:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anglican Diocese of LeedsDiocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales – The diocese refers to itself as the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales, so does the BBC and Synod. It is the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales headed by the Bishop of Leeds. Reliable verifiable sources call it the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales. Furthermore, they only call it the Diocese of West Yorkshire & the Dales. There are no references to a Diocese of Leeds on the CofE's own site. In fact the site links to "". It is the official name, the common name used by reliable sources and the name used by neutral organisations (not in the the CofE), such as the BBC. Every time I would search for 'Diocese of Leeds' on British news sites (such as the Times, Telegraph and Guardian, I kept coming up with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds. --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Pjposullivan (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)UlcinjUlcinj – The current title contains the Unicode character U+01CC nj latin small letter nj. The proposed title contains the normal ASCII characters ⟨n⟩ and ⟨j⟩. This article was moved a month ago to a title with a precomposed character, with the edit summary “Unicode title”, as if precomposed characters were more correct, which is not the case. It is not wrong to not use the digraph characters, and it is misguided to think that they are necessary. According to Unicode, digraphs should be represented by their constituents. The Croatian digraphs were “only encoded in Unicode because of votes on the negative ballot on the first version of ISO/IEC 10646” ([21]). These precomposed compatibility digraphs are not actually used in Croatian sources, much less English sources. Moreover, a proposal to move an article to a title with a compatibility digraph was rejected in 2012, so this page (and a dozen others) should not have been moved without discussion. Gorobay (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 19, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Haym SolomonHaym Salomon – This is the spelling used by: all three images used in the article (a US stamp, a cemetery memorial plaque from the Salomon Lodge of B'rith Sholom, and a grave marker installed by his grandson, William Salomon); an image of an historical marker plaque at Mikveh Israel Cemetery used in that article; most other commemorations listed in the article. The article's usage should be internally consistent as well as consistent with the title, images, and majority of sources, all of which this move achieves. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Matt Harvey (baseball)Matt Harvey – I believe that Matt Harvey (baseball) is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Matt Harvey. That article has been viewed 5826 times in the past 30 days, which is 93.6% of the views amongst the four Matt Harveys with articles – nearly 15 times as many as the three other Matt Harveys combined, and over 30 times as many as the second-most viewed Matt Harvey. Even the disambiguation page Matt Harvey has nearly as many views (only 9 fewer) as the other three Matt Harveys combined, which suggests that the readers who go there are likely looking for the baseball player. *Matt Harvey the baseball player (5826 views)*Matthew Harvey the lawyer (191 views)*Matt Harvey the poet (153 views)*Matt T. Harvey the journalist (52 views)*Total (6222 views)*The disambiguation page (387 views)Looking over 90 days, the disparity is even starker. Views for the baseball player make up 95.5% of all views, over 21 times as many as the other three combined, and over 42 times as many as the second-most viewed. Even the disambiguation page has been viewed more than the other three combined (1340 vs. 1132).*Matt Harvey the baseball player (24348 views)*Matthew Harvey the lawyer (571 views)*Matt Harvey the poet (437 views)*Matt T. Harvey the journalist (124 views)*Total (25480 views)*The disambiguation page (1340 views)Additional support for the idea that viewers of Matt Harvey are looking for Matt Harvey (baseball) can be seen by looking at the view spike on June 23. On that day, views of the disambiguation page jumped from 7 the day before up to 73. Likewise, views of the page for Matt Harvey (baseball) also jumped, from 141 to 616. This spike is not reflected in the other articles though. They all fell – Matthew Harvey from 12 down to 5, Matt Harvey (poet) from 2 down to 1, and Matt T. Harvey from 5 down to 2. A similar spike (disambig and baseball player go up by a lot, the others don't) can also be seen on April 22. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Doom 4Doom (2015 video game) – The title of the game has been clarified as just 'Doom', with exec. producer Marty Stratton quoted as saying "the game is called Doom, not Doom 4, and not something like Enemy Territory: Doom Wars". For more evidence, see my comment in the 'Name changes' section.As for the year, a release date is yet to be confirmed but indications are that we will 'see more' of the game next year: IGN said "A public reveal of the game is likely to take place sometime in 2015." Metro said "Exactly when it’ll be out is unknown but apparently there were two separate gameplay demos, suggesting the game may be far enough along for a 2015 release." PCGamesN said "it looks exceptionally doubtful that we’ll get a taste of Doom until 2015."Given that the article's current title is demonstrably inaccurate, and we need a way to differentiate it from the original Doom's article, I think we should switch to "Doom (2015 video game". The title of the article for the new Battlefront game is one precedent for this approach. In any case, I think "Doom (2015 video game)" is significantly more accurate at this stage than "Doom 4". Smurfy (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Mustang horseMustang (horse) – Previous RM established this is not the primary topic for "Mustang". However, Mustang horse is not a natural disambiguation (in contrast with, for example, Shetland Pony which is natural) and leads to absurd and awkward sentences, like the lead sentence of this article: "The Mustang horse is a horse..." What's next? The Mustang car is a car? The Mustang airplane is an airplane? The effort for consistency with other breed titles is appreciated, but let's not do it when it leads to absurd titles like this one. В²C 00:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – There was a recent dust-up over whether to include (and capitalize) the word "The" in references to this church. In this context, I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion about the article name and how the guideline WP:THE might apply to it. I want to be neutral as to the result of this discussion, but I do want the discussion to take place.There are some preliminary points which I believe are relatively uncontroversial: (1) the official name of the church includes the capitalized "The", and for the past few decades materials that the church publishes consistently includes and capitalizes the "The", even in running text; (2) the inclusion of the capitalized "The" as part of the church's name has theological significance to the church's adherents: see this article; (3) a special Manual of Style has been developed to address some of these issues; the appropriateness of the existence of this MOS has been questioned; (4) this church claims to be the same institution as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there are also a lot of other churches that claim the same thing; (5) there are a bunch of other churches, past and present, with very similar names, but this one is by far the largest and most prominent of the lot: see here; and (6) almost all non-LDS sources, on a consistent basis, when referring to the church, do not capitalize the "the" in running text. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)August 2013 Rabaa MassacreRaids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins – Let's face it: The term 'massacre' is not only a loaded sensationalist term per WP:POVTITLE, but it is also far from being a common name. A high number of fatalities doesn't automatically make an event a 'massacre' so there is no need for participants in this thread to cast emotionally-driven !votes. Even if there are several media sources that call it a massacre, we're still not obliged to follow sensationalist journalistic names per WP:NOTNEWS. The proposed title might be commonly used by some government officials, but it is not government POV as it is the most neutral and descriptive name that comes to mind. And although this is irrelevant, but a quick Google search shows 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre' and 192,200 hits for 'august rabaa raid' and 267,000 hits for 'august rabaa dispersed' (however, there are only 38,100 hits for 'august rabaa dispersal', but I don't think it really matters). On the other hand, I only see 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre'. And per the above RMs, we cannot ignore the other protest camp that was dispersed in Al-Nahda Sq. which is located in Giza (12km away from Rabaa Sq.) and there is no need to have a date in the title since no such event occurred in those 2 locations at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Madonna (entertainer)Madonna – I'm aware that this is a perennial request and has been repeatedly shot down. The argument that frequently comes up is that Mary and Madonna (art) are more notable. However, the singer's page has been viewed 640,000 times in the last 90 days - about 4 times as much as Mary (where "Madonna" isn't even the common name, as shown by the title and the lead section of that article) and nearly 19 times as much as the art. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And I think it's pretty obvious looking at the stats that most of our readers are looking for Madonna the singer.PRIMARYTOPIC also mentions long-term notability and educational/cultural significance, which I'm sure will be brought up in opposition to this request, but given that the common name for the mother of Jesus, by far, is Mary, and the pageview stats, I think listing the singer as the primary topic with a hatnote at the top linking to Mary and a disambiguation page would be the most appropriate choice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pa'u ridersPau riders – * Either you should ignore all modern Hawaiian orthography and write it as Pau riders like Luau and Alii and basically how 19th century and earlier 20th century sources wrote it or write it in its correct meaning per Hawaiian dictionaries....Pau is one the most used examples of misuse of ʻokina's and kahakō's in the Hawaiian language. See meaning all forms of Pau. The article should either be titled Pau riders (ignoring ʻokina's and kahakō's and any attention to Hawaiian meaning like Luau or Alii) or in its correct form. The halfway compromise Paʻu (soot and drudgery) just garble the meaning of the word and dishonors the Hawaiian language. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.