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:

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. In line with BRD, 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 without following 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 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, you can request the other page be deleted. This applies for example if the other page is 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:Move over redirect instead. 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, 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 subject/headline field should be left blank; a section header named "Requested move" will be created automatically. 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 31 October 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]

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).

== 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.


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.

October 31, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)2AM2AM (band) – "2AM" normally would mean the time, so this title should be redirected to 2 A.M. disambiguation page; additionally 2am and 2 AM should also be repointed to the disambiguation page -- (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eric Matthew FreinEric Frein – There is renewed media attention just now due to Frein being apprehended, and current news stories seem to prefer just "Eric Frein" to refer to him. The proposed title already redirects here, and there is not another notable Eric Frein who might be confused with this article's subject. There is a well-known journalistic tendency to refer to fugitives from justice by their full name, but once the usage in sources has shifted, we should match them rather than have an unexpected page title. (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Singapore LionsSingapore FA – For consistency across all articles of the state teams which took part in the Malaysia Cup competitions, and per WP:COMMONNAME. The other articles are named "XXX FA" (FA being the equivalent of FC in other football club articles). For example, Sarawak FA (nicknamed The Crocs), Pahang FA (nicknamed The Elephants). The Football Association of Singapore, as with the other state FAs, entered their state team in the competitions. They were know simply as "Singapore" in the media, or referred by their nickname, "The Lions". I believe the reason behind choosing "Singapore Lions" and not "Singapore FA" as the initial page title was in order not to confuse readers between the team and the football association. A {{about}} note could be placed at the Football Association of Singapore and the Singapore FA pages to explain the differences between the two. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 01:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) LRD 07:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Portal:Latin American musicPortal:Latin music – In mid-2012, the Latin American music task force was changed to the Latin music project to cover "Latin music" as a music genre rather than simply a regional music project. The major reason for this was because of the complicated and different meanings of "Latin music" and so that artists who are considered Latin artist but aren't Hispanic or Latino can be covered too. Moxy created the portal back when the project started as a task force for Latin American music. I tried moving it to a new name last year, but it ended up causing red pages to appear and was moved back to "Portal:Latin American music". I need this portal and all of its subpages renamed to "Portal:Latin music" to match the project's current scope. The portal will be based on Latin music (genre) rather than Latin American music. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Erick (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Wilkinson (retailer)Wilko – Roughly between 2010-2014 Wilkinson began rebranding to Wilko and as far as I'm aware most, if not all stores now carry the Wilko name, (I was going to move myself but thought best I started a request instead.), Cheers, –Davey2010(talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fractional reserve bankingFractional-reserve banking – Move back over redirect to hyphenate the compound modifier for clarity per WP:HYPHEN. The article itself seems to consistently include the hyphen in practically all cases (all except in the last small section at the end of the article). Note, however, that there was a prior move on 09:59, 15 September 2011‎ in the opposite direction (which may have been an undiscussed move, as I have not found an archived discussion about it). At the time, the mover (Lawrencekhoo) said "Unhyphenated term is much more common than hyphenated term". I am open to the other possibility, but the current mismatch between the title and the content of the article seems like a problem and the hyphenated use seems more like clear, readable English. Hyphenation would also be consistent with the hyphenation of Full-reserve banking. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC) BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Illibuck TrophyIllinois–Ohio State football rivalry – I've declined the speedy on the name change since there is active debate over the name's change. I'm posting this as this seems to be the basic debate over the name. I want to state that I am neutral in the manner and while I've left it under Illibuck Trophy for the time being, this should not be seen as an endorsement for the article's name. The basic argument for leaving it under Illibuck Trophy is that this is the main reason for the rivalry and it is a common name, whereas the argument for the move back to Illinois–Ohio State football rivalry is that this is also a common name and that similar articles have been moved to reflect upon the specific rivalry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Raining Men (song) → ? – OK, I know this doesn't seem like it's helping anyone, me making a third move request in the space of a month, but the current title is not appropriate. One of the following two things needs to happen: 1. If you DON'T think there is potential confusion with It's Raining Men, then (as there are no other articles specifically called "Raining Men") move the page to Raining Men. or 2. If you DO think there is potential confusion with It's Raining Men, then (given that that's a song too) move the page to Raining Men (Rihanna song). --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 03:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RussophobiaAnti-Russian sentiment – this article is inconsistent with other articles on the same topic, e.g. Anti-French sentiment in the United States, anti-Mexican sentiment, etc. We need to rename this article to "Anti-Russian sentiment", because its content is not necessarily about an irrational phobia, and calling it such is not politically balanced and we need the proposed more neutral term. This article has been renamed back and forth over several years, this needs to stop, and the topic has already been discussed at length on this page. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Willa wonky (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Great Britain and IrelandBritain and Ireland
    In academic use, "Great Britain" refers solely to the island, while "Britain" may refer to either the island or the state.
    Therefore, in academic use, "Great Britain and Ireland" refers only to the islands.
    This article shows uses of phrases which refer to both the islands, and the states. Therefore I think "Britain and Ireland" is a more appropriate title.
    Rob984 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Biserica Mănăstirii DominicaneMonastery Church, Sighișoara – There are four principal reasons for retitling this article and adopting my proposed replacement: *The current title is not in English, and per WP:UE, we should be using an English-language title: "If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader." **There is, in fact, no established name in English, with one academic source calling it "the Dominican convent of Sighișoara" and another not even assigning a particular name. I think it's undeniable that a translation will not diminish accuracy but will greatly improve understanding for English speakers. *If one looks at Category:Roman Catholic churches in Romania and, to a lesser extent, Category:Lutheran churches in Romania, one sees that there is a generally established pattern for titling churches of these denominations in this country (the present church switched from Catholic to Lutheran in 1556): name, city. "Monastery Church, Sighișoara" fits perfectly within that pattern. *The closest we have to an official name is this, from the Romanian Culture Ministry. It refers to the building as "the church of the former Dominican monastery, today a Lutheran church, known as the Monastery Church", which is whence I derived the proposed new title. *"Monastery Church, Sighișoara" is in English, it gives the name and location right away, and helps the average reader rather than confronting him with an unrecognizable phrase. Biruitorul Talk 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Brian WhelehanBrian Whelahan – Whelahan is the correct spelling of Brian Whelahan'a surname. This can be seen on his official literature, his political homepage and his pub front. Whelehan is a mispelling that occasionally crops up in the media and on sports blogs. Bongoball (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Human rights in the United StatesUnited States human rights
    The title of this article is too narrow to cover its contents. In particular, the contents in section 8 - War on Terrorism, as well as section 10 - International comparison, don't fall strictly under the scope "Human rights in the United States", which is interpreted by many as "Human rights within the border of the United States". Given the unique position of the United States in the global arena, with its omnipresent political, economical influence, its military operations, and more specifically, with its efforts in the international human rights progress, as well as controversial acts, and in accordance with the general spirit of Wikipedia as the sum of all human knowledge, it is hereby proposed that, instead of removing the contents, the title shall be changed to "United States human rights". Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Radiologic technologistRadiographer – 'Radiologic Technologist' is a name which is almost exclusively used in the United States, as a result it does not represent a worldwide perspective of the name for this profession. One way to evidence this is to look at the ISRRT's council members ( list to see what radiographers from different countries around the world call themselves. If a tally is counted the USA's representative was the only councillor who used the term 'Radiologic Technologist'; note that she also used the term 'radiographer' to describe herself. Whereas over 20 other country representatives used the term 'radiographer' making it more common and hence more universal. This is in line with this Wikipedia naming policy. This move will make the article more globally representative. 01Chris02 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Unitary stateUnitary system – request change so as to expand the relevance of the topic in relevance to other articles. At this stage I am particularly thinking of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, despite its name, is not internationally recognised as a state. Ban-Ki Moon even went as far as to describe it as a Non-Islamic, Non-State. The disambiguation page State provides the interpretations of state as follows: * State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government * Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law; a society having exclusive domain over a territory * "State", in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish state (government) from private schools * Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation * Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state such as the United States, Australia, India and Brazil Arguably only the third definition can apply to an unrecognised state.
    For instance, in the article Sovereign state we read: "International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." I think that the word system fits in as well as state and this would expand potential use. Gregkaye 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RosesRoses (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT, the clear primary topic of "Roses" in terms of historical importance is the singular, Rose, a flower with massive longstanding cultural significance for which many other uses of the plural are named; move this page and redirect "Roses" to "Rose". bd2412 T 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NosebleedsNosebleed (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT, the clear primary topic of "Nosebleeds" in terms of historical importance is the singular, Nosebleed; the band is obscure and the phenomenon of seats with a distant view of the stadium floor is comparatively unimportant. Move this page to the singular "Foo (disambiguation)" title, add Nosebleed (film), and redirect "Nosebleeds" to "Nosebleed". bd2412 T 16:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Single-party stateSingle-party system – request change so as to expand the relevance of the topic in relevance to other articles. At this stage I am particularly thinking of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which, despite its name, is not internationally recognised as a state. Ban-Ki Moon even went as far as to describe it as a Non-Islamic, Non-State. The disambiguation page State provides the interpretations of state as follows: * State (polity), an organized political community, living under a government * Sovereign state, a sovereign political entity in public international law; a society having exclusive domain over a territory * "State", in some contexts virtually synonymous with "government", e.g., to distinguish state (government) from private schools * Nation state, a state which coincides with a nation * Federated state, a political entity forming part of a federal sovereign state such as the United States, Australia, India and Brazil Arguably only the third definition can apply to an unrecognised state.
    For instance, in the article Sovereign state we read: "International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." I think that the word system fits in as well as state and this would expand potential use. Gregkaye 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yellowglen StakesLinlithgow Stakes – In 2012–13 Yellowglen Stakes was used as the name. But in 2014 the Victoria Racing Club decided to run the race as the Stakes. Since the race has had several name changes the article should revert to the registered race name. An article exists under that name but it is a redirect. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa2014 Ottawa attacks – There are previous discussions that came to somewhat of a conclusion that the typical format for these types of articles is "[yyyy] [location] [shooting/attack]". This move request is in line with that, and the media's labelling of the incident is also consistent. I have chosen "attack" over "shooting" because a) there were two shooting incidents (one at the war memorial, and one in Centre Block), and we might get into semantics about whether it should be "shooting(s)", and b) because my general observation in media coverage is that this was perceived as not only a vicious attack on the victims, but a subjective 'attack' on Canadian soldiers and institutions. There has been disagreement on whether the war memorial was part of Parliament Hill, so "Ottawa" is chosen because a) we can all agree to the fact it was in Ottawa, and b) the worldwide community will recognize Ottawa as the Canadian capital. --Natural RX 17:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nobility in the Kingdom of HungaryHungarian nobility – The subject refers to the noble families of the Kingdom of Hungary. Beside the legal history of the nobility [post-WW1 and post-WW2 issues also belong to the subject (+ after the Second World War we can't even talk about "kingdom")], I think, due to the living descendants of the Hungarian nobles, it is a current topic too. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SludgeSewage sludge' – In my opinion this page should be renamed to "Sewage sludge" as that's what it deals with (in the beginning other types of sludges are briefly mentioned but the whole article is on sewage sludge). There is a redirect from sewage sludge to sludge already, but I think it is better if this page was called "sewage sludge".  EvM-Susana (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Narrative modeNarration – "Narration" is obviously the more commonly recognizable name to encompass everything that "narrative mode" does on this article. Oxford Dictionaries online defines "narration" as "the action or process of narrating a story."[1] Narration works nicely to incorporate narrative point of view, narrative voice, and narrative time, all of which this article now covers. Thoughts? --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Wolfdog (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fly Like an EagleFly like an Eagle (album) – I would prefer like because like is a four-letter preposition in this title. Per WP:NCCAPS, a preposition no more than four letters must be lowercased. If sources matter to you, I guess many use "Like", but they are not grammar experts. Source that uses "like" is this book, and I guess more sources should exist. If you disagree, how about Fly Like an Eagle (album)? Why adding "(album)"? Stats for the album may be including readers seeking the well-known song. I really wanted to make "(song)" the primary topic, but the album also includes another hit, Rock'n Me, which I haven't yet listened. Therefore, I propose that the current title be of the disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Paint by numbersPaint by number (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT, the clear primary topic of this title is Paint by number, which is about as likely to be referred to by the plural in books and websites as by the singular. Of the other options on the page, one is actually "Paint by Number", capitalized and in the singular, another is a song which has no article, and a third is a basically a special case of painting by number using formulas rather than numbers. I propose to move this to a disambiguation page at the singular title to accommodate all singular and plural variations. bd2412 T 02:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Benjamin ChurchBenjamin Church (physician) – I don't believe this Benjamin Church meets either of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Usage-wise, Church the doctor's page doesn't get more views than all the others combined, and in fact barely exceeds the second-most viewed page (Church the military officer) despite the advantage of having the primary topic position. (Over the past 90 days: Church the doctor, 5382 views; Church the officer, 5072 views; Church the carpenter, 525 views.) A check of Google Books looked to significantly favor Church the officer, as does the number of links from other articles (officer 122, doctor 22, carpenter 7). While Church the doctor has considerable long-term significance, Church the officer does as well, enough that Church the doctor doesn't have a clear claim to the primary topic under this criteria either. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Male reproductive systemMale Reproductive Anatomy (human) – I feel that the name of this article is misleading in terms of its content. As James pointed out sometime ago, the male reproductive system isn't restricted to human males, so an article of this name should contain a more well rounded treatment of male reproductive anatomy and physiology. Having this article name occupied by a discussion of human male anatomy additionally prevents editors from creating and users from finding content related to animal reproduction as a whole, which I feel limits the goals of the biology wikiProject.
    Using this article title to describe male animal reproduction more broadly would also allow the information currently on the Sexual reproduction page to be moved to an article (i.e. this one) where it can be organized in a better way. Where the information is currently, it is displayed under the "Animal" section, which limits the headings and subheadings that can be used to visually divide the information. As a result, this portion of the Sexual reproduction article looks like a wall of text that is difficult to navigate and find information in.
    I do see a need for this article and its contents seeing as how most Wikipedia users are human and therefore most interested in human anatomy. That is why I would like it moved to a more appropriate and specific title so that this space can be used to describe male anatomy more generally. Creigpat (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2 Girls 1 CupHungry Bitches – This is an article about a film who's trailer has a different name than the actual film. The film is called Hungry Bitches and the trailer, not the film, is called 2 Girls 1 Cup.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chinese Canadians in British ColumbiaChinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver – "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia" is an off topic title. This is clearly only about the Greater Vancouver region and not about the province as a whole. All of the sources used by this article discuss the Vancouver region only and no content in this article, at the time it was moved, discusses Chinese ethnics in other cities. There is enough material in reliable sources to discuss ethnic Chinese in the Greater Vancouver region. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hall & OatesDaryl Hall and John Oates – I know this has been voted on already, but I do think the result was wrong. The name of this act is Daryl Hall and John Oates and cannot be disputed. COMMONNAME cannot apply in this instance and surely the real name is preferable where possible. Every album/single they released is under this name - and we can't get anymore official than that. Taking a look at some very reliable sources we have this, this, this and especially this. If greater reliable sources can be brought forward that say "Hall and Oates" then I'll concede and only then can COMMONNAME come into play. Besides, as long as Hall and Oates/Hall & Oates are redirects, I don't see a problem to move.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 25, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Orly AirportParis–Orly Airport – No definite consensus for use of disputed common name "Orly Airport" over the official English language name. Also to get this article title in consistency with all other major french airports, which use a dash in their title. Mxfh (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Separate But EqualSeparate but Equal (film) – First, "but" is a coordinating conjunction and a preposition. The whole title of the TV film treats "but" as a coordinating conjunction. In fact, "but" conjoins "Separate" and "Equal". Per WP:NCCAPS (can't use just MOS:CT, which doesn't mention page titles), coordinating conjunctions no more than four letters can't be capitalized. "but" has three letters. If sources matter, some (if not many) use "But"; some others, like this and that, use "but". "but" cannot and must not and shall not be a special exception. See Nothing Broken but My Heart for comparison. If you disagree, why not Separate But Equal (film)? I propose an addition to "(film)"; no matter what WP:DIFFCAPS says, a mere capitalization is not distinctive enough to know the difference between "separate but equal" and the TV film. Since there are no other films of the same name, per WP:NCF or WP:NC-TV, I couldn't propose adding "TV" for disambiguation. "(film)" shall be used instead until... there is another film Separate but Equal in the future (but without violating WP:CBALL). George Ho (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lega NordNorthern League (Italy) – There is no reason to maintain the italian name, all english sources call this party with the english name "Northern League", that is certainly the most common name into english language! Following the WP:COMMONNAME principle the best name for this party is "Northern League", the justifications to not move this page were specious. – Maremmano (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 24, 2014[edit]


  • (Discuss)Port Authority Trans-HudsonPATH (rapid transit) – The WP:COMMONNAME of the system is PATH, and as per Wikipedia policy, this should be the title of this article. The official website prominently displays “PATH” much more than its official name, and the same is true when people enter and use the system itself. “Port Authority Trans-Hudson” is found on the exterior of rolling stock, but rarely anywhere else in the system from my experience. Popular/media usage also tends to favor the acronym. As I do not believe this article is the (worldwide) primary usage of either PATH or Path, and I decline to argue that it is, I am proposing to use the disambiguator above as the most likely to follow conventions of other Wikipedia articles. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Tinlinkin (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BridgesBridges (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT. I see nothing on this page to dissuade me from thinking that the clear primary topic of the term is the singular, which is by far the most important topic historically, and which the pop culture topics intend to evoke where they use that title. bd2412 T 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jeong Eun-jiJung Eun-ji – Jung Eun-ji is the WP:COMMONNAME for the artist. A google news search for Jung Eun-ji shows 679 results while a search for Jeong Eun-ji shows 10 results, of which are actually for Jung Eun-ji. A Naver dictionary search for Jung Eun-ji shows her Korean name as the result while Jeong Eun-ji does not. While Jeong Eun-ji appears to be the name used by her entertainment company, it is not deemed her 'official' English name and is decidedly less used than Jung Eun-ji. KJ Discuss? 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Carbon (fiber)Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


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