Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. 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.
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, see below: § Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus, see below: § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to use the requested move process 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:

Undiscussed moves[edit]


Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you can not revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]


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), 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 the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|reason= <!--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 the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move it to the Contested technical requests section.

  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. This may apply, for example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. To request the other page be deleted, 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, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

{{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). Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 05 March 2015". Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. The template must be substituted.

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

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations need 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 guideline 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]

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 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.


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. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given. When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions.

To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example). This can also be done by using {{subst:Relisting}}, which signs the relisting automatically. The RMCD bot uses the new timestamp to relist the entry on this page.

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. One option is 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 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.

March 5, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Northern AegeanNorth Aegean – These two articles have been moved after a slightly overhasty discussion on Talk:Western Greece#Requested move 21 February 2015. In the meantime I did some research on general naming customs pointing to the form with the -ern suffix stressing the geographical significance (one could loosely say "northernmost" and "southernmost"), regularly being used if there is something central in between. The form without the -ern suffix however is regularly used as a two-tiered disambiguator between North and South or between East and West (see the cases of Germany, Korea, America). In the case of the Aegean regions, while both versions are colloquially used, this translates to North Aegean vs. South Aegean being the more appropriate names.
    While these findings might be seen as WP:OR (someone might find literature on this though), here's now the objective facts: "North Aegean" in literature is clearly more common (~4:1) than "Northern Aegean". Also, "South Aegean" is more common (~3:2) than "Southern Aegean", although less clearly. While in the case of the other administrative regions of Greece, our recent move was absolutely justified, these two articles need to be moved back. While consistency might be considered a nice thing, general naming customs and WP:COMMONNAME IMHO leave us with no other option. PanchoS (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Robert MuldoonRob Muldoon – Personally opposed, but requested by other editors. Supporters argue that he was universally known as "Rob Muldoon", I contend that in newspaper reports of the time he was usually "Robert Muldoon". MaxBrowne (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

March 4, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Yvette (given name)Yvette – A month ago, we had a discussion establishing solidly that the Yvette River was not the primary topic for the name Yvette. At the time, several participants suggested that they felt the name should be considered the primary topic. I agree that this common French name should be considered to have long-term significance over the minor river, and I wanted to see if pageviews supported that that was what people were looking for. It is: in the past 30 days, the article on the name has been viewed 1047 times, and the article on the river only 80 times, a ratio of 13:1 in favor of the name. Even the disambiguation page, which only has links to these two Yvettes, was viewed 427 times, a ratio of over 5:1 over the river, which suggests that most people who got there were looking for the article about the name. Since the name meets both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it should be the primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Greek MuslimsGreek-speaking Muslims – The title of the article infers that people who are Greek speaking and Muslim are Greeks, when their unique communities now resident in Turkey have historically not identified with Greek identity. It represents an erroneous position, which when it comes to other similar communities with complex linguistic and other identities (like the Arvanites or Slavic speakers in Greece), they are not referred to as Albanians, or Macedonians/Bulgarians, because people within those communities may disagree with such names. For more see below:relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Resnjari (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chicago 'L'Chicago "L" – WP style is to use double quote marks, not single. And most sources, including those cited in the article, use double quotes. It's not clear how this ended up with single quotes, given that sources and our MOS both go the other way. So let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 3, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Trek (disambiguation)Trek – After various moves including a very recent retargetting, "Trek" redirects to this dab page which is clearly wrong. It previously pointed to Backpacking (wilderness) (with no hatnote there to point to the dab page). The dab page seems to have enough different entries to suggest that "Backpacking" is not the Primary topic for "Trek", so the dab page shouuld be moved to be at the base name. PamD 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2 May 2014 Odessa clashesMay 2014 Odessa clashes – The previous RM was closed as removing "2 May" from 2014 Odessa clashes. As a result, the article was broadened. Then it was split into a newer article and the same article dealing with May protests in Odessa. I still think a "2" is unnecessary to exactly insert in order to search for this article. Some or many articles that deal with one-day events do not use an exact date, unlike September 11 attacks. I tried asking others to split the article up, but no one responded. Therefore, I'm sure that the title change won't affect the article itself. George Ho (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ram Kinker BaijRamkinkar Baij – The page was moved from "Ramkinkar Baij" to its current title in 2010 (by @Ekabhishek:) with the edit summary "as per Lalit Kala Akademi listing", but usage in the article itself, in the related book and film titles, and in Google hits suggests that "Ramkinkar" is used much more often than either "Ram Kinkar" or "Ram Kinker". PamD 12:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Egyptian jackalAfrican wolf – First of all, a Google search on "african wolf": Of the first 4 images in the result, 2 are C. l. lupaster, 1 is C. simensis, and 1 is Canis aureus or a hybrid between C. l. and C. a.. Now to the non image search results: 3 are Ethiopian wolves, the rest are all lupasters on the 1st page. Now to the 2nd page, 2 are simensis, 1 is Lycaon pictus, 1 is a snake, and the rest are lupasters, no Xenocyon. Secondly, the article states that lupaster is "still" recognized as a subspecies of golden jackal by MSW3, the so-called authority of classification, in 2005, the problem with this is modern mtDNA studies that confirmed them grey wolves are published on 2011 and 2012. Thirdly, the source for them being golden jackals is Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1833, which is an even older and less reliable source than modern genetic studies. Fourth and lastly, it isn't even endemic to Egypt. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dominic CournoyerDom – The name of the artist is, Dom. The surname, Cournoyer is incorrect as the full name of the artist is, Dominic Hus. Thanks. Dommusicinc (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial ParkwayJohn D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial ParkwayWikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, which "sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles", has recently been revised as § Child named for parent or predecessor (WP:JR) to provide that a comma should not be inserted before "Jr." or "Sr." This follows an RfC discussion which cited numerous style guides which supported that a comma before "Jr." or "Sr." must be accompanied by another comma afterwards (unless at the end of a sentence, etc.) but the trend is to omit the comma entirely. Although some "official" sources may be formatted differently (and various "official" sources may differ), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title" (WP:COMMONNAME; see also WP:OFFICIAL), and Wikipedia routinely corrects incorrect punctuation in quoted sources (see MOS:QUOTE). Thus, we should follow Wikipedia's style guide. In summary: *John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (incorrect punctuation and against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway (acceptable punctuation but against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway (correct punctuation and follows MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library (incorrect punctuation and against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Library (acceptable punctuation but against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library (correct punctuation and follows MOS) sroc 💬 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Spot croakerSpot (fish) – only one (the same page is use for #2 and #6) uses “spot croaker.” Accordingly I propose the article be moved to Spot (fish). And in the text “spot croaker” should be changed to “spot” except for sourced mentions that it is also called “spot croaker” and that it is so called because it “croaks.” —teb728 t c 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jesús "Chuy" GarcíaChuy Garcia – In his professional and public life Commissioner García goes almost exclusively by the nickname Chuy. Per WP:Commonname I think it would be better if the article title reflected that. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

March 1, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Bolting (horse)Bolting (equine) – As the article's first sentence says, this topic applies to all equidae, not just horses (i.e., it includes donkeys). The format "Foo (horse)" is also almost exclusively used for individual horses, e.g. notable racehorses, and there are a large number of such articles, which may lead readers familiar with the topic area here to assume "Bolting (horse)" refers to a specific horse's name. (Technical note: It shouldn't be "(equid)" because that's not a common word, and all equids are equines and vice versa; they're monophyletic taxa, containing only the [extant] genus Equus. The normal English word for "members of the equidae" is "equines"; cf. WP:WikiProject Equine itself, for example.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Phra ubosotUbosotPhra is an unnecessary honorific. It can and should be removed.
    Notes: Phra is an honorific in Thai. It can literally be translated as holy, excellent, etc. It is used for gods or god-like figures (Buddha, priests, etc.) as well as things relating to them (sculptures, places, etc.). The main noun is ubosot. iudexvivorum (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Raymond Wong (film presenter)Raymond Wong Bak-ming – Or Raymond Wong Pak-ming. Because he is not a primary topic, he is deservingly disambiguated. However, the parenthetical disambiguation looks awkward at best. There is nobody disambiguated as "film presenter". This guy has been an actor, a director, a producer, a screenwriter, and a presenter. Sources like Xiamen and The Star use "Bak"; other sources use "Pak", like SCMP and Hollywood Reporter. Per WP:NATURALDIS, parenthetical disambiguation would have been suitable solution if natural disambiguation is not possible. However, these sources make these proposed names possible. By the way, he can't be confused with the other guy, Raymond Wong (actor), also called Raymond Wong Ho-yin. --Relisted. Number 57 13:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

February 28, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Template:RefimproveTemplate:Ref improve – I propose to move this template to {{Ref improve}}, replacing {{Refimprove}} with a redirect to the new title. This matter has been raised many times at WT:TW and was mentioned also at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Yobot. In my view, the "canonical" name of a template should be as clear as possible, and this can be done by spacing out the lexical components of the title. I note also that all the related templates with multi-word titles have spaces between the words. The motivation for this request is that Twinkle lists the more friendly name, "ref improve", but bots come along afterwards and change it to the canonical name, "refimprove". I think it is neater to be able to list "ref improve" in the list of article maintenance tags, so it would be great to be able to move the actual template to this title. Needless to say, all existing titles would be maintained as redirects. — relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)This, that and the other (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ministry of the Means of Communication (Soviet Union)Ministry of Railroads (Soviet Union) – Well it's a bit of a dog's breakfeast, and figuring out Soviet bureaucracy isn't easy, but I think that Ministry of Railroads is a better fit. For one thing, the article starts out "The Ministry of Railways oversaw..." and it's pretty confusing to have the article title use one term and the bolded introduction to the entity in the opening sentence use another. So we have to change either the article title or the opening sentence.

    But which one? Well, the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia is Ministry of Railways of the USSR -- at least, that's how I'd translate it. Granted there's not a one-to-one correspondence between many words in different languages, and you could render "путей сообщения" as "post ways" or "message roads" or "communication pathways" or "means of communication" I suppose, and so on. But IMO it basically means railroads.

    However, I don't know if it had a different name(s) at different times, and if it did that could complicate things. But at any rate, according to the article, their gig was apparently overseeing railways, period, and the Russian Wikipedia article (which covers somewhat different ground) also indicates this. Finally, we don't want to get the reader confused with the Ministry of Communications and Information, which is an entirely different entity. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lugansk People's RepublicLuhansk People's RepublicUser:RGloucester has been running a change of name discussion for this article since 22 February 2015. It is clear from the discussion that there is some support for his/her initiative. If it is to be proceeded with, there must be a requested move. Listing this on requested moves will open up the discussion. Proposing this move is purely procedural, and does not endorse the proposal. Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 27, 2015[edit]

February 26, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)The Singing NunJeanne Deckers – This was her birth name, her name in Belgian law. As a nun she was called Sister Luc-Gabrielle. She had the stage name of Sœur Sourire or Sister Smile and her recording of "Dominique" was credited to her as "The Singing Nun" in the United States. Later she took the stage name of Luc-Dominique. "The Singing Nun" was instead the name of a fictionalized character in a film based on her, or rather it was the name of the film itself. A later film based on her real life was called Sœur Sourire (Sister Smile). Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC). Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Novak DjokovicNovak Djoković – Following normal en.wp practice for -vić Serbian bios, such as Milošević etc. (see Category:Serbian-language surnames), per full unicode English hardback sources such as John Grasso Historical Dictionary of Tennis ‎2011 "December: Novak Djoković wins two singles matches and helps Serbia defeat France to win the Davis Cup." Note that Djoković with a "Dj" is the now less used older Roman Serbian spelling, per Gaj's Latin alphabet, while in the modern romanization of Serbian (such as supermarket tabloid newspapers like Blic) "Dj" is now more usually rendered with "Đ", so Đoković. However both Đ and Dj are still used in Serbian so the proposal is to move to a middle position which retains consistency with en.wp's -vić Serbian bios but is fully transparent and recognizable to English-language tennis fans. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mithraic mysteries → ? – # There is absolutely no treatment of the figure of this religion at Mithra, where it belongs; # Mithras unhelpfully redirects generically to this page on his religion, which doesn't have any thorough treatment of the figure himself; and # there's a stubby POVFORK at Mithras (name) that doesn't deal with the linguistics—it doesn't even mention that Classical Greek theta was not a /θ/ but /tʰ/ sound—but seems to dwell on the figure and his appearances, doing worse at both the linguistics and the treatment of the figure than this page does. I understand that modern scholarship now separates this religion from the religion in Persia, but Mithras the figure is simply the Greek and Roman form of the other god's name. There is already a treatment of the Manichaean figure of Mitra on the Persian god's page and there's no reason his Roman form should be handled differently, unless we really have so much material that a split becomes necessary. At that point, there should still be a section on the Persian god's page linking to a content fork at Mithras (not Mithras (name)). Mithras (name) I don't know what to do with. The useful bits should be merged back here or to Mithra's #Etymology section. The name in and of itself is completely non-notable as a topic; for better or worse, it's simply the Greek and Roman form of Mithra. The further etymology of the name in Hittite, Sanskrit, and reconstructed Proto-Indo-European has absolutely no relation to the Greco-Roman name Mithras, which was just picked it up from the Persians; it belongs on the Persian god's page and nowhere else. --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)  — LlywelynII 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Rizwan Ahmed (cricketer)Rizwan Ahmed – Currently, Rizwan Ahmed redirects to the article for actor Riz Ahmed. While Rizwan is his full first name, there's no reason anyone would search him under his full name when he is credited as simply "Riz". In the off chance that they are, a hatnote on this article would suffice to direct them to the right place.--Relisted. Mdann52 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Sock (tock talk) 15:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pelasgus epiroticusEpirus minnow – As explained in the original move, this name seems to be more common in the relevant literature. Such literature is not extensive but in google scholar "Epirus minnow" returns 13 results[10] while "pelasgus epiroticus" 8.[11]. Most results overlap since the scientific name is usually mentioned alongside the colloquial name but it must be stressed that the source with most citations uses "Epirus minnow" as the common name. The author that contested the move asked for references which I added in the main text Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Smithers (name)Smithers (surname)Smithers (surname) currently confusingly redirects to Smith; yet we have a surname article for Smithers, so this should be moved to that title, to indicate the scope of this article, as surname articles should use "surname", while "name" covers names that are both surnames and given names, and "given name" is for given names. This article does not include any given name variants. -- (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Battle on the Ice (Lake Peipus)Battle on the Ice (1242) – Noting multiple undiscussed moves of this topic (with use of admin tools to leave no redirects behind!), I request discussion. I believe "Battle on the Ice" is one proper noun name of this, but not "Battle of the ice". Appending the year (1242) is helpful for clarity, I think. "Battle of Lake Peipus" is also possible. --Relisted. Number 57 13:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) doncram 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tryphon, Respicius, and NymphaSaint Tryphon – This article is currently about three saints that have no connection to each other except for having the same feast day (formerly). The section about Respicius and Nympha is totally unsourced. I propose this article to be solely about St. Tryphon and Respicius and Nympha be removed from the article. If someone has somesources about Respicius and Nympha, we may create new article (or two) about them. --Relisted. Number 57 13:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CocomesCocom – The Maya state was Cocom; the article title uses an inappropriate Spanish-language plural --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Simon Burchell (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Government-owned corporationState-owned enterprise – As discussed and basically agreed upon above, "state-owned" is the slightly broader, but less fuzzy concept. Various different definitions of "government" exist, ranging from a synonym of "state" to the mere executive branch or what in U.S. terminology is called administration. Also, as discussed there, not all state-owned enterprises are organized as corporations. State-owned enterprise (SOE) is common terminology. I prefer this to be formally discussed befor making the move though. --PanchoS (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC) PanchoS (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Smells Like Teen SpiritSmells like Teen Spirit – Prepositions containing four letters or fewer should not be capitalized in article titles per MOS:CT. Move log and past talk page discussions bring up very poor points about "official" names. (The name of the song is exactly the same; the difference is the capitalization, and we have guidelines for that.) –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DHS (disambiguation)DHSDHS redirects to United States Department of Homeland Security. Today, the redirect was changed into a disambiguation page. I have reverted the change, as there is already a disambiguation page (this page) and am opening this move discussion to gauge consensus on whether the disambiguation page should move to DHS or the redirect should stay where it is. All links to DHS have been disambiguated (I didn't know this page existed until I went to create it). There were 52 links to DHS, of which 49 were meant for the Homeland Security department. Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mandrake (plant)Mandrake – Primary meaning's the plant. According to this, "Mandrake (plant)" has been viewed 16703 times in the last 30 days, while according to this, "Mandrake" has been viewed a mere 1378 times in the last 30 days. What of the other stuff on the dab page? The band has 195 views, the comic book character 4300, the play 1437, the album 669, Leon 276, TV series 763, Mandrake Press 154, Mandrake of Oxford 160 and Tom 396. That's a total of 8350 views for the non-plants: less than half as many hits as "Mandrake (plant)". --Relisted. Number 57 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Ass'nCurley v. NAMBLA – In this edit, Good Olfactory moved the article from "Curley v. NAMBLA" to "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association." In this edit, Good Olfactory moved the article from "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association" to "Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Ass'n." I don't know what Good Olfactory was thinking with the moves, but the title should be moved back to the Curley v. NAMBLA title, per WP:Common name; it should be titled that or Curley v. North American Man/Boy Love Association. I tried to move the article back to Curley v. NAMBLA, but it requires a WP:Administrator to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Teuta of IllyriaTeuta – The most appropriate article name would be simply Teuta, as per common name. "Teuta of Illyria" is very scarcely used in sources. She was never the ruler of Illyria (and never titled as such). In reality, she ruled parts of Illyria, and was the queen of the Ardiaei. Gbooks hits (-llc -wiki): "Teuta of Illyria"-51, "Teuta, queen"-322, "Queen Teuta"-397. Zoupan 03:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)A PinkApink – According to Article title policy: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles." Both version are commonly used in multiple English-language reliable sources. However proposed name "Apink" are more appropriate considering the 5 characteristics of a good Wikipedia article title on the article title policy: #Recognizability and Naturalness - The group is listed under this name on Billboard, Youtube, Naver, major retailers such as iTunes and Melon as well as their official website. Therefore, it will be the title that the reader will most likely look for. #Conciseness and Precision - "A Pink" is ambiguous in English language and can be misleading as "a" color "Pink" while "Apink" is unique and unambiguous. It can be seen on Google News search from Jan 1 - Feb 12. The search result for "A Pink" are not related to the group but to the color "Pink" while the result for "Apink" are related to the group #Consistency - The proposed title is consistent with WP:BANDNAME and MOS:TM guideline. Sonflower0210 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)I Don't KissJ'embrasse pas – The English sources use the current English title. However, many other English sources also use the original French title. One and another and another use French title as main title. WP:NCF encourages using commonly-used name, be it either native name or translated name. I hope the proposed title is more common. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hobbiton film setHobbiton Movie Set – This was the original location of the article. Rationale copied from a discussion at User talk:Spidey104 follows. "Re your move, I am not at all familiar with WP film protocols and I have attachment to movies vs films, but am I wrong in thinking that as the name of the visitor centre would appear to be "Hobbiton Movie Set", that this move should either be reversed, or amended to "Hobbiton movie set"? Ben MacDui 12:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anthony Davis (basketball)Anthony DavisUser:Rracecarr has been insisting that this is an uncontroversial move, and that this article should be the primary topic. With two failed move requests here, I'd say it's not uncontroversial. My request that they do this via RM was not taken well, so rather than see this continue to fester, I thought it worth discussing. Guettarda (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


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