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 01 August 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.

August 01, 2014[edit]

July 31, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Tapiche Ohara's ReserveTapiche Reserve – Owner and management of the Tapiche Reserve have decided to officially drop Ohara's from the name as it is no longer necessary or pertinent to the property and only causes confusion among visitors. See the current official website as well as the new website under construction Property is also officially listed as Tapiche Reserve on and Tapichejungle (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ShreeShree (2013 film) – Move to create disambiguation page. Article was previously coincidingly created at requested target. Proper page move with histmerge requested. BOVINEBOY2008 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Madonna (entertainer)Madonna (singer) – Even though she has appeared in several films, Madonna is undeniably best-known as a singer. In Google Books, for example, the term "Madonna singer" pulls up 812 results while "Madonna actress" only pulls up 38 hits. "Madonna entertainer" finds 455 results, although it would appear that this is only because much of the material is sourced by this poorly-titled Wikipedia article. Several articles have been renamed replacing their former "(entertainer)" disambiguators, and given her international success for her music, it seems fitting that Madonna be disambiguated with this specific term. The titling of this article is clearly a controversial topic, although I hope that simply modifying the disambiguator will be a better option than the current naming. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kuk (disambiguation)Kuk – Unlikely that the Egyptian mythological entity is more likely to be sought than all the other uses together: several places, two languages, etc. The article was created in 2002 and got the undisambiguated title at a time when the encyclopedia was a lot smaller. PamD 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)English rose (personal description) → ? – or, as an alternative to this change, please mediate on the content of English Rose. This page has history including a change from Revision as of 1 May 2009 (so as to remove the suggested central definition of the term) to Revision as of 9 May 2009 (which was later changed, returning primary definition to the page at a late stage in "other" in an edit that also relegating a secondary topic to same level) in: Revision as of 4 October 2012. English rose (personal description) was effectively was created on 29 July 2014‎ as a substantial edit of English Rose and this was done so as to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All dictionaries indicate the content of English rose (personal description) as being the primary definition of the term, (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5). Content that had been at English Rose was either moved to English Rose (disambiguation) or was incorporated into the main page. Other points of view can also be considered. An editor at Talk:English_Rose asserted that, "English Rose usually refers to one of England's national emblems, the Tudor Rose" but this topic already has its own page. I am also uncertain about the potential validities of a horticultural and a national symbol definition of the term. However, I have developed a substantial content on the horticultural description as Floral reference of the "English rose". A potential national symbol interpretation of English Rose might include reference to the Tudor Rose, to the red rose and to emblems such as that of England's Rugby Football Union's national team. (Is it possible that both name spaces "English rose" and "English Rose" might be used?) The three definitions that I have mentioned seem to be to be the most notable definitions of "English R/rose" and I wondered whether a second definition could occupy the capitalised space. - but, whatever decision you come to, please help with the disambiguation page. I can't see why a recording by the Jam which was never released as a single is placed above actual definitions of the term. Gregkaye (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Transport BoardTransport Board (Royal Navy) – Rather obscure 18th-century British Navy organization is hardly a primary topic for "Transport Board", which is part of the name of numerous offices across the globe (listed on the dab page, as well as several unlisted). It's far from top of Google searches, and even its sources suffered a lot of link rot. Just because this this article was the first to occupy the undisambiguated title is not sufficient reason to keep it there. The title lacks Recognizability criterion of the WP:AT. No such user (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Henry Eyring (Mormon convert)Henry Eyring (Mormon) – While I admit there is no steadfast rule, I find the use of (Mormon convert) as a parenthetical unusual. The norm has always been to use ether the leadership position (if necessary), such as Joseph Fielding Smith (presiding patriarch) or (Mormom) and sometimes (Latter-day Saint), such as George Reynolds (Mormon). Personally I prefer (Latter-day Saint) because it distinguishes what sect this person is a member, as only the LDS Church uses "Latter-day Saint" while other sects us "Latter Day Saint" and "Mormon". However, I admit that this is not done as often as (Mormon), so I have purposed to use (Mormon). I will be happy no matter which is chosen, but I think this page should be renames for uniformity reasons. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (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) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wisconsin witch huntJamyi Witch hiring controversy – None of the sources use the phrase "Wisconsin witch hunt". Only one source uses "Witch hunt" - "It started out as a simple job search. But it turned into a witch hunt.Make that a Witch hunt." Clearly a joke about the persons name and not a title of the incident. further, the title is a WP:OR spin, a great deal of the WP:RS are talking about a controversy. It is not the controversy of the "hunt" but rather the controversy of the hiring (said controversy's most visible part being the hunt). Especially considering the content of the article a few revisions back, the title seems like it was part of a BLP violation, the majority of which has already been cleaned up. Now its time for the title Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

July 30, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Lerika (child singer)Lerika – The page has been simply named "Lerika" for most of the time since it has been created, however someone recently changed the title to "Lerika (child singer)". This is pointless because there was no conflicts with the name and now "Lerika" will just redirect to this page. She should not even be considered a child singer any more since she is now 15. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Biel/BienneBiel – "Biel" already redirects here, so this rename wold not need disambiguation. Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy tells us that we should use the the most common English name for the title of the article. MOS:SLASH tells us to "avoid joining two words by a slash". I think that the page should be moved to "Biel" because that is the most commons name used in English language sources. Google News search gives those results:*1,490 results for "Biel" ("Bienne" and "lake" excluded),*4 results for "Bienne" ("Biel excluded), and*6 results for "Biel/Bienne".Google books search gives following results:*44,300 results for "Biel" ("Bienne" and "lake" excluded),*30,900 results for "Bienne" ("Biel excluded), and*7,110 results for "Biel/Bienne".I think that this is the evidence of the commons use of the name "Biel" in English language. I agree that "Biel/Bienne" is the official name of the city, but Wikipedia's policy os to use the most common name, not the official name (see: WP:OFFICIALNAMES). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 30 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.
    Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 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". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (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. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:42, 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. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (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.) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) IJBall (talk) 16:19, 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) 11:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Cold Season (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chen Kun (actor)Chen Kun – The actor is a lot more notable than the baseball player. Just compare [3] with [4]. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "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." Baseball player can receive a hatnote link. Timmyshin (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

July 29, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Grand Prix Championship SeriesGrand Prix Super Series – To the best of my knowledge there are no reliable sources to indicate that the name "Championship Series" was ever used to identify the top tier of Grand Prix tennis tournaments below the Grand Slams (and the year-end Masters). From 1982 through 1989 the term "Super Series" is used in the World of Tennis yearbooks to officially designate this tier of tournaments. The term itself is used as early as early as 1977 (1). While the term "Super Series" does not cover the entire Grand Prix period from 1970 – 1989, as Totalinarian mentions different designations were used during the 1970s, it at least covers a significant part and is therefore a better name than the current one which shows no usage at all. Wolbo (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mike Jones (wrestler)Virgil (wrestler) – Since Mike Jones (wrestler) is not even a natural disambiguation, I'd rather move it to Virgil (wrestler). Virgil was his most prominent stage name. He achieved the most exposure as Ted DiBiase's lackey in WWF (now WWE). How do we know? Because the man himself considers it so. Consider this website with many pictures of Virgil. Now, in these pictures, Virgil is selling merchandise or something at some events. How does he market himself? Virgil, WWE Superstar. He doesn't call himself Mike Jones or Vincent or Curly Bill. Why? Because those names are not as famous. He knows that Virgil is his most famous name and his most famous period was in WWF (now WWE). starship.paint ~ regal 12:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grease interceptorGrease trap – Most common name. Seems to be used by the majority of professionals (Roto Rooter, e.g.), judging by the top Google results. Grease interceptor is still a perfectly legitimate alternative name, but does not appear to be the most appropriate title for this article on a generic device. Even the article prefers grease trap over interceptor and has done so since its inception. (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BiomimicryBiomimetics – Cleaning up after a bad copy and paste merge that failed to move the correct, primary page history. Target was a duplicate stub created two years after the primary topic. It remained a stub from 2004-20013 while this topic (Biomimicry) was the primary topic. Recently, an editor decided to copy this material from here to biomimetics instead of requesting a proper move. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Steve Hayden (copywriter)Steve Hayden – Clearly the primary topic. The fictional character from the marginally notable book series certainly is not. In any case, with only two relevant articles, there's no need for a disambiguation page, since it saves nothing in comparison to hatnotes. Miscellaneous user (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tung Chee HwaTung Chee-hwa – Consistency with other Cantonese name articles without English name, and most articles on Wikipedia refer him as "Tung Chee-hwa" regardless. There is not enough source to support this article to be an exception. ThisAvatar (discuss?) 21:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The BahamasBahamas – As per WP:THE, "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not." In this case the WP:COMMONNAME does not usually contain a capitalized "The".According to Google Ngram Viewer (which is case sensitive) [5], roughly 61% of the time an uncapitalized "the" is used, 12% of the time a capitalized "The" is used, and 27% of the time no "the" is used. (Note that the capitalized "The" figure will be an overestimate as it includes capitalizations due to "The" starting a sentence.)A survey of recent sources finds that most major media publishers do not capitalized "The": BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Miami Herald, CBC, Toronto Star. TDL (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kristen BlakeKristen DiMera – It is of great debut of whether or not Kristen's commonname is Blake or DiMera. And considering it is of different times than it was when the first request move was made, I am re-opening for editors alike to discuss whether or not the page should be moved, once again. Below, say whether you support the change and why, or whether you oppose the change and why. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lana Del Ray (album)Lana Del Ray A.K.A. Lizzy Grant – I realize that I requested that this article be moved not too long ago, so before I jump the gun with any further proposals, I'd just like to start an informal discussion first. As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would indicate that this record is titled just Lana Del Ray; Idolator, MTV, The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Vanity Fair all call the project by the extended title Lana Del Ray A.K.A. Lizzy Grant. I would like to reach a consensus as to what the correct title of the record is, and from there take any further action as necessary. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gut (coastal geography)Gat (landform) – The original article about gats has been conflated with the similar, but not identical term, gut (see above discussion). My proposal is to revert the name and subject back to gat (landform) and to create separate article on the coastal gut if need be. Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) --Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)IdiotIdiocy – It seems to me that it would be more encyclopedic to have a title addressing the condition, rather than the person who has it. We have, for example, Capitalism, not Capitalist (which redirects there); and Paraplegia, not Paraplegic (which redirects there). bd2412 T 17:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Women's development theoryWomen's Ways of Knowing – This page refers to the book Women's Ways of Knowing so it ought to be placed under that, with an italic title. The book is just one theory about the way in which women develop (there is currently a redirect page of that name that links to this page). Any page named "Women's development theory" should consider multiple theories and contain a section about this book with a Main article: Women's Ways of Knowing hat note at the top of that section. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Flying Fox of Snowy MountainFox Volant of the Snowy Mountain – Although both the current title and the proposed title are equally used by reliable sources, the authorized English publications (1996 ed., eBook) use the proposed title. Therefore, the article should be renamed. As for pinyin title, "xueshan feihu", it's occasionally used, but I guess people won't go for it. I won't propose renaming adaptations of the novel yet. Instead, I will research their official translated names (and rename adaptations if no official translated title, depending on this discussion). This discussion should not affect adaptations of the novel, as they are officially titled differently. George Ho (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song)Who! (song) – This is going to sound very odd coming from me since less than a month ago I closed a move discussion for this article to a different destination and declared a six-month moratorium on this article's movement. However, since that discussion, I have expanded the article considerably and it seems that the article gained considerable popularity under the name "Who"; it just charted as "Dr. Who".Since that expansion, Hadji87 had boldly moved the article to "Who! (song)" with the edit summary "only song called 'who'" or something similar (I haven't looked since the move). This has been followed by a bunch of subsequent moves by others and frankly I am afraid that the DYK for this article will fail the stability test.I'm starting this discussion to get an answer as to what opinions are on omitting "Dr." and if in favour, should this page be moved to "Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song)" and if so what should we do about Who? (song). (I can see no good reason for two RMs when one will suffice.) Launchballer 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (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" [9], 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 [10]. On the other hands, Google Books returns 106.000 results for "Stewart Island", ("Rakiura" excluded)[11]. 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)




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