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 10 July 2014", along with a location for survey and discussion. Also note that the template must be substituted. The template will automatically include your signature.

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

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

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

== Requested moves ==
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.

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

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


See also Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Relisting

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

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

July 10, 2014[edit]

July 09, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)IdiopathicIdiopathy – Per naming conventions, we use the noun form not adjective form. Lead sentence will need to be tweaked.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shout (sound)Screaming – The majority of this article is on screaming, not shouting; also, it's WP:NATURAL disambiguation and a gerund, which is our normal practice at Wikipedia. The proposed title already redirects here. Red Slash 06:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

July 08, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)PronaturaPronatura (Mexico) – This page refers to an organization called Pronatura, which is a Mexican environmental organization. I am trying to create a page for Pro-Natura International, a Brazilian based NGO that has been around since the 80's. I would like to make Pronatura a disambiguation page that links to both this page and the PNI page. Besides "Pronatura (Mexico)", we could maybe use "Pronatura (Asociacion Civil)" or something like that. I leave that up to other's best judgement. Both groups seem to have been formed around the same time and while PNI seems to operate on a more global scale, I think it fits best to not have a primary topic. Thekeydesign (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)112 (group)112 (band) – The redirect should be the other way around to be in sync with the titles of most of the other articles on here about musical ensembles. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vann (disambiguation)Vann – There is no clear frontrunner for well-known use of the term, not even the small Iranian/Pakistani evergreen bush. The disambig should be the most simply named, and all others should have modifiers or should use their botanical name Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Qaṣīda al-Burdaal-Burda – per WP:Commonname, there is no need to append the title of this page with "Qaṣīda" which is Arabic for poem that is additionally spelled with phonetic diactcrics (ṣī) that are not normally used for Arabic titles, because those are not generally transliterated in the title. Additionally saying "Qasida al-Burda" is wrong grammatically in Arabic because it should be "Qasidat al-Burda". Al-Burda is a notable enough topic that there is no need to refer to it otherwise. An instance of needless WP:PRECISION, that is like saying "the state of Germany" instead of just "Germany". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Tachfin (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – There was a recent dust-up over whether to include (and capitalize) the word "The" in references to this church. In this context, I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion about the article name and how the guideline WP:THE might apply to it. I want to be neutral as to the result of this discussion, but I do want the discussion to take place.There are some preliminary points which I believe are relatively uncontroversial: (1) the official name of the church includes the capitalized "The", and for the past few decades materials that the church publishes consistently includes and capitalizes the "The", even in running text; (2) the inclusion of the capitalized "The" as part of the church's name has theological significance to the church's adherents: see this article; (3) a special Manual of Style has been developed to address some of these issues; the appropriateness of the existence of this MOS has been questioned; (4) this church claims to be the same institution as the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but there are also a lot of other churches that claim the same thing; (5) there are a bunch of other churches, past and present, with very similar names, but this one is by far the largest and most prominent of the lot: see here; and (6) almost all non-LDS sources, on a consistent basis, when referring to the church, do not capitalize the "the" in running text. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MacintoshMac (computer) – Both officially and in conversation, as well as in modern sources, the computers being sold are called “Macs”. As far as I can tell, modern reliable sources refer to the line of computers as “Macintosh” only in historical contexts anymore. (I have mixed feelings about this turn of events myself having grown up with Macintosh, but these seem to be the facts, and Wikipedia should primarily use modern common names.) (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DohukDuhok – This move is potentially controversial because it is a request to move the page back to its former name. The record of the former move appears to be based on unanalysed Google tests.While it is clear that the spelling "Dohuk" has had widespread use. The current governorate ( and university ( both use the spelling "Duhok". I believe that those two examples should carry weight.The problem with the numerous spellings of the name is partly from the difficulty of pinning down the Arabic دهوك, for which the most accurate transliteration is most probably Dahūk. That is "most probably" because the value of the first, short vowel is not written in Arabic. However, in North Mesopotamian Arabic the vowel ū is often rendered as ō (as at the end of "Zakho", the second syllable of "Alqosh", and somewhat similarly in the first syllable of "Mosul"). Many short vowels in the local dialect are reduced to schwas, and this is the case in Arabic pronunciation of the first syllable of the city in question. A schwa could be written in many ways, but it is often rendered with a u (as in the second syllable of "Mosul"). Thus, I would suggest that the spelling that best represents the local Arabic pronunciation is "Duhok".The Kurdish spelling (seeing as Kurdish is the main language in the city) is دهۆک, which is transliterated as Dihok. In Kurdish i is the most fleeting of the vowels, and it is left unwritten in Sorani script. The Kurdish spelling "Dihok" is not often used in the medium of English, but it does support the understanding of the two vowels as schwa and "o". Although nowhere near as important, it might be worth pointing out that the usual Turkish spelling is "Duhok".I believe that the spelling preferred by the governorate and local university, alongside the local Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish pronunciation point to "Duhok" being the preferred spelling. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Gareth Hughes (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The LouvreLouvre – The definite article "the" is not part of the name. See, for example, this page (in English) at the museum's web site. "The" is not capitalized in running text, as in for example: "Support the Louvre", and therefore should not be part of the Wikipedia article title according to WP:THE. Robert.Allen (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Metropolitan Museum of ArtThe Metropolitan Museum of Art – The definite article "The" is part of the official name of the museum and should be capitalized in running text and should be included in the Wikipedia article title per WP:THE. See the museum's web page, or numerous books published by the museum in which, on the title page and on the copyright page, "The" is included in the name of the institution, e.g., "Published by The Metropolitan Museum of Art". Robert.Allen (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 07, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Template:RailGaugeTemplate:Track gauge – Current name RailGauge is ambiguous, even and especially within the domain of railway engineering. Gauge#In_railway_practice lists three variant concepts of 'gauge': track, load, and infrastructure. All related to a "rail gauge" (said this way: any railway you can point to can have these three gauges.) This proposal is supported by the article and category names in Category:Track gauges (I disclose, recently I moved a few pages into this naming fold -- for the same reason). Not an argument, but a bonus: by this move we can also get rid of the spelling hiccup. "Track gauge" is the intuitive spelling, not "RailGauge" or "TrackGauge". DePiep (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gloucester County CollegeRowan College at Gloucester County – The official name of the academic institution formerly known as Gloucester County College is now "Rowan College at Gloucester County" ([1][2], among more sources). However, a newbie editor who doesn't understand about page moving and edit history preservation created a brand new article, Rowan College at Gloucester County, which should just be the GCC article under a new name. Nothing is different about the school (for Wikipedia's purposes) other than official name change, thus that should be the target article. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

July 06, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)South Pacific MandateSouth Seas Mandate – The Japanese name, 南洋庁, translates more accurately as South Seas Mandate, rather than South Pacific Mandate (in fact, the entirety of the mandate lies north of the equator), and there is in fact a discussion from above which led to a name change in the article. However, the name change appeared to be only superficial, such that the page name itself was still South Pacific Mandate. Zmflavius (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fathers & FamiliesNational Parents Organization – Over a year ago Fathers and Families changed their name to National Parents Organization but their wiki page has not been changed to reflect that, so it needs to be moved. Evidence is the redirection from the page to page. Further evidence is on that homepage: "National Parents Organization (formerly Fathers and Families)..." S03kj1uyym (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FeylisFeyli Kurds – The page is keep getting vandalised by people that claim that Feylis are Lori people. Therefore I think its a good idea if the title gets changed to Feyli Kurds --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Ahmetyal (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)JoomlaJoomla! – This page's name seems to have been changed back and forth repeatedly. I can't tell when the last move happened, but the official name of the application is clearly "Joomla!", as unwieldy as that is. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Yaron K. (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HD 168476PV Telescopii – Surely under our guidelines on accessibility, PV Telescopii is alot easier to remember and more accessible than HD 168476. Furthermore, SIMBAD uses that term as do the AAVSO, which suggests these bodies see the name as a preferable and accessible name for layepeople. It is informative - noting the star is (a) a variable and (b) in Telescopium...and it has given its name to a class of variable star - PV Telescopii variable. Name usage in journals doesn't quite translate to general use and I think SIMBAD and AAVSO recognise that....and I think we should too. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Christian Outreach for Relief & DevelopmentCord (charity) – Cord, while founded as "Christian Outreach" in 1967, has never been known as "Christian Outreach for Relief & Development". Over the last number of years to current day, this organisation has been known by supporters, founders, partners and employees simply as "Cord" (not, it should be noted, CORD -- it is not an acronym.) You may visit to see how the organisation presently brands itself. Because of this Wikipedia article's name, many news sources searching for information on the charity have ended up publishing information under the wrong name. It is critical that this name is changed as soon as is possible. Thank you. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Jhamann2 (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Independent (politician)Independent politician – The lead of the article (prior to my recent edit) notwithstanding, the entire body of this article discusses politicians who are independent politically. WP:NATURAL says to boot out parenthetical disambiguators whenever we can; we can here. Let's make something clear: this article is not about independent human beings who are not politicians. It is entirely about politicians. Therefore, the discussion two sections above has nothing to do with this, and we can move on and move the article at the same time. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Red Slash 01:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Latvia and the euroLatvian euro coins – The euro convergence articles for all other countries which have already switched to the euro have article names ending with 'euro coins', while articles related to countries which have not yet switched to the euro have article names ending in 'and the euro'. Latvia has already switched to the euro and completed the last stage, which was scrapping the requirement to display dual prices. Frenzie23 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 05, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Anne of Burgundy, Countess of SavoyMarguerite of Burgundy, Countess of Savoy – In looking around at the related pages, I see no sourcing for the current name, Anne. In doing further research, I found one source[4] which calls her Anne, but that same source in another location[5] indicates that the name could equally be Marguerite. Another online source[6] is clear that it is Marguerite, with sourcing of its own.[7]. A book about Amadeus and his brothers mentions the debate regarding her name,[8] but finds a source[9] which Cox finds settles the debate. 1bandsaw (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)West Germany 1–0 AustriaWest Germany v Austria (1982) – Restore original titles from later moves. These games aren't referred to by their score (very few are); they're referred to by their year. Check any newspaper bringing up "West Germany & Austria's 1982 match" and "West Germany & Algeria's 1982 upset" and the like lately (due to fears of collusion on US v. Germany and now Germany & Algeria's rematch); they don't say "West Germany 1-0 Austria." Similarly, the US and England have surely played each other many times in friendlies, and a score of 1-0 is hardly uncommon; if you want to talk about the 1950 match, you have to say 1950. Also note that the score-as-disambiguator is quite rare in Category:FIFA World Cup matches (for all that I'd be willing to scrap consistency if these matches really were referred to by score-only in modern sources - but they aren't.). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC) SnowFire (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PSR B1259-63PSR B1259-63/LS 2883 – Much of the study of this pulsar is in relation to how it interacts with the Be star LS 2883 over the course of the binary orbit. It therefore seems to me that it would make most sense to change this article's scope to the binary system as a whole rather than just the pulsar. The combined designation is attested from the titles of multiple papers listed on SIMBAD for this system [6]. A possible alternative title would be PSR B1259-63/SS 2883: this appears to have been the original form of the designation and therefore "wins" on a simplistic count of number of usages, though the paper titles indicate that the LS form has been more frequently-used than the SS form since the first appearance of the LS form in 2011. (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bali AccordBali PackageIn July the page Bali Package was moved to Bali Accord. This discussion serves to evaluate if there was consensus for this move, or that it should be moved back to its original location....*Oppose move to "Accord", Support return to "Package". The ministerial declaration of WTO on Bali called it Bali Package, as well as reliable sources like Deusche Welle, FAO, the Guardian and the European Parliament, to name just a few. The term Bali Accord is also used, most notably by a recent UNCTAD source, but I have no indications it became the formal name (UNCTAD uses Bali Trade Facilitation Agreement), nor is it the common name (Google hit numbers are far from authoritive, but Bali Package does have 40 (!) time more of them...)... A mve to "Accord was thus not justified... L.tak (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shahrukh KhanShah Rukh Khan – "I propose moving the article from 'Shahrukh Khan' to 'Shah Rukh Khan' based on WP:COMMONNAME:*Google search provides 35m hits vs 5m for the current title. Number of search hits is similar.*It is the name used on IMDB.*It is the preferred name of the subject himself as explained in the first reference in the 'Public image''Wealth and popularity' section and by his twitter account title.Lead sentence will change to "Shah Rukh Khan (born Shahrukh Khan, 2 November 1965)" --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC) BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)" rfc modified to move request by User:SpacemanSpiff.SpacemanSpiff 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

July 04, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Donets BasinDonbass – It is clear that the English-language common name for this region is "Donbass", using the Russian spelling. I've taken a look in multiple places to see what is favoured, either the Russian spelling, Ukrainian spelling, or the English translation "Donets Basin". Google Ngrams show that "Donbas", the Ukrainian spelling, used to predominate. However, in the past ten years or so, the Russian spelling, "Donbass", has overtaken the Ukrainian spelling as the most common in English. "Donets Basin" has been depreciated in recent years, and has fallen behind both "Donbass" and "Donbas". Recent events in the Donbass region have made the area more well known, and have also caused the area to be frequently referred to as "Donbass", noting that the area is predominately Russian-speaking. Google News searches confirm this, showing that "Donbas" has only 5,710 hits, whereas "Donbass" has 24,600. Donets Basin only has seven hits, showing how far that translation has fallen. Therefore, I think that we should move this article in line with the common name, as demonstrated by recent usage, which is "Donbass", which is also more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC) RGloucester 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Natural and legal rightsNatural rights – This article is the result of a merger between once separate articles on "Natural rights" and "Legal rights". I can see no good reason for this merger and propose to revert it. They are both clearly distinctive encyclopedic topics. While it is likely that each article will refer to the other concept this is not the same as saying that they are the same topic, or that they can only be defined in opposition to each other.

    As it stands the merged-in content from "Legal rights" has long be deleted from the merged Natural and legal rights article so it's not really a question of splitting the content, just moving one and restoring the other. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)August 2013 Rabaa MassacreRaids on the Rabaa and Nahda sit-ins – Let's face it: The term 'massacre' is not only a loaded sensationalist term per WP:POVTITLE, but it is also far from being a common name. A high number of fatalities doesn't automatically make an event a 'massacre' so there is no need for participants in this thread to cast emotionally-driven !votes. Even if there are several media sources that call it a massacre, we're still not obliged to follow sensationalist journalistic names per WP:NOTNEWS. The proposed title might be commonly used by some government officials, but it is not government POV as it is the most neutral and descriptive name that comes to mind. And although this is irrelevant, but a quick Google search shows 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre' and 192,200 hits for 'august rabaa raid' and 267,000 hits for 'august rabaa dispersed' (however, there are only 38,100 hits for 'august rabaa dispersal', but I don't think it really matters). On the other hand, I only see 40,200 hits for 'august rabaa massacre'. And per the above RMs, we cannot ignore the other protest camp that was dispersed in Al-Nahda Sq. which is located in Giza (12km away from Rabaa Sq.) and there is no need to have a date in the title since no such event occurred in those 2 locations at the same time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bain-marieDouble boilerDouble boiler currently redirects to here, and although I've never heard of "Bain-marie", I've heard of "Double-Boilers" many times. The discussions on this page seem to indicate a mild consensus towards merging a Bain-marie article into a Double Boiler article, but nothing supporting what has happened -- the opposite -- merging Double Boiler into Bain-Marie jheiv talk contribs 09:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC) jheiv talk contribs 09:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ross Parker (composer)Ross Parker – I started an article for Tony Award winning composer Ross Parker. Someone created an unnecessary disambiguation page for Ross Parker. The other entry is a redirect to an article about a murdered youth. I have no doubt that most people will be looking for the cowriter of We'll Meet Again and not for the voctim of a 2001 crime – Bwaybaby77 (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 03, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Madonna (entertainer)Madonna – I'm aware that this is a perennial request and has been repeatedly shot down. The argument that frequently comes up is that Mary and Madonna (art) are more notable. However, the singer's page has been viewed 640,000 times in the last 90 days - about 4 times as much as Mary (where "Madonna" isn't even the common name, as shown by the title and the lead section of that article) and nearly 19 times as much as the art. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And I think it's pretty obvious looking at the stats that most of our readers are looking for Madonna the singer.PRIMARYTOPIC also mentions long-term notability and educational/cultural significance, which I'm sure will be brought up in opposition to this request, but given that the common name for the mother of Jesus, by far, is Mary, and the pageview stats, I think listing the singer as the primary topic with a hatnote at the top linking to Mary and a disambiguation page would be the most appropriate choice. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Port Fairy railway lineWarrnambool railway line – This has always struck me as being a very strange name for this article. There hasn't been track anywhere near Port Fairy, let alone to it, in ages. While this was the Port Fairy line once upon a time, it's been the Warrnambool line for decades - not only in terms of services but in terms of physical track. Calling it by a destination that is now linked to the railway line by twenty kilometres of grass is thoroughly confusing to anyone under the age of fifty without a knowledge of railway history. I think it's about time we addressed this properly as history, but called the line by its actual name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Together (Singapore TV series)Together (TV series) – There is no reason for a disambiguation page at Together (TV series). The British series does not have an article, and none of the 47 incoming links are referring to it. Even if an article were created, it seems likely that the Singaporean series would be the primary topic. This could be handled with hatnotes rather than a dab. Nick Number (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CAN busController Area Network – Most commonly known as CAN or Controller Area Network and secondarily as CAN bus, CAN Bus or CANbus. CAN is normally expanded in technical documents and WP:NCA discourages acronyms in titles in these cases. As per WP:NOUN we capitalize the title if the subject is is a proper noun. Previous lengthy discussion about how the subject is or is not capitalized in sources is not directly relevant. If you don't like the caps, please provide justification for CAN as a common noun. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ~KvnG 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Song structure (popular music)Song structure – Unnecessary disambiguation. I understand that the reason for the dab is the possibility that articles on the structure of non-popular songs will be written eventually, but I suspect that this possibility is merely theoretical and such articles are not realistically to be expected. My lay impression is that the overwhelming majority of literature about the structure of songs is about popular songs, not art or folk songs, and that there is not nearly enough encyclopedical content to write about the structure of non-popular songs to justify concurrent articles, possibly. That said, I would not be surprised to be wrong on this account. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gladstonian politicsGladstonian liberalism – "Gladstonian liberalism" is the accepted term for Gladstone's brand of liberalism. A Google search returns 8,210 results for "Gladstonian liberalism" and "Gladstonian politics" returns just 277 results. "Gladstonian Liberalism" is used in Colin Matthew's biography (p. 411 of the combined ed). The term is also used in countless text books covering the Victorian era. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Britannicus (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Coffea canephoraRobusta coffee – Per WP:Common name and WP:FLORA we should use the most readily understood and most widely used name as an article title. Sources, including those currently used in the article, use "Robusta coffee", and when using "Coffea canephora" will tend to say (as does the article introduction): "commonly known (or better known) as Robusta coffee". Under the principle of least astonishment, the term most widely used and most widely understood is the preferred name for an article in order to reassure a reader that they have arrived at the right place. A reader who is already familiar with the scientific name, "Coffea canephora", will be aware that it is also known as robusta; while a reader who is only familiar with the common name may wonder why their search request produced an article called by an unfamiliar name. The time for educating people as to the official or scientific or alternative names for a topic, are when they are secure they have arrived at the right place and have started reading; until that point, the principle is that we use the best known name to reassure the most people. Google or book searches will indicate that "Robusta coffee" is about four times more used than "Coffea canephora" --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Draft:Paul Hume (game designer)Paul Hume (game designer) – The article was sent to AFD in 2012 and had no sources at the time, and was deleted with two concurring delete responses. I restored the article to my user space last year and added a good reliable source and moved to the new Draft space. I am not certain if it is ready to go back into article space, but I feel it is worth discussing. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Draft:Adam JuryAdam Jury – The article was sent to AFD in 2007 and had no sources at the time, and was deleted after only one concurring delete response. I restored the article to my user space last year and added a good reliable source and moved to the new Draft space. I am not certain if it is ready to go back into article space, but I feel it is worth discussing. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Draft:Chris SeemanChris Seeman – The article was sent to AFD in 2008 and was in pretty bad shape at the time, and deleted with four unanimous responses. I restored the article to my user space last year and added a good reliable source and moved to the new Draft space. I am not certain if it is ready to go back into article space, but I feel it is worth discussing. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CacıkTzatziki – The name of the sauce is Tzatziki but there is a strong reference of the history of Tzatziki that originates from Turkey. The article should be named after Tzatziki and the history of the sauce can be integrated into a paragraph on the history. The name tzatziki became widely known through the Greek cuisine and the name Cacik is simple misleading the reader. The history of the sauce is not deleted and I propose thatshould be included within the article because the Greek and Turkish civilizations and cuisines have many similarities. It would be unfair though to make an article for Tzatziki and one for Cacik. On the other hand it would be unfair also to name the article Cacik when almost eveyone looks to read about Tzatziki. Last but not least it is unfair to name the article Cacik when this name is known only within Turkey and not in Europe which is known as Tzatziki, not in North America which is known as Tzatziki as well and finally the name tzatziki is used widely in many top chefs cookbooks around the world. The name tzatziki has dominated every reference of this sauce worldwide. Cacik is only referenced within Turkey. *Support. In my experience Tzatziki is the more commonly used name. Calidum Talk To Me 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kim Jong (table tennis)Kim Jong – The only person in English Wikipedia whose name is actually Kim Jong. Obviously Kim Jong-il is far more notable, but he does not meet WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: I see no evidence that Kim Jong-il is called "Kim Jong" in reliable sources. More generally, the second syllable of a Korean given name is not like an English "middle name" which can be dropped arbitrarily; it's an integral part of the name, like the "than" of Nathan" or the "ris" of "Boris". We have no redirects for other nonsensical or even semi-plausible shortenings of other world leaders' names (Bar Obama, Gordo Brown). Even completely-plausible shortenings which aren't widely used in real sources either (1) don't exist (Will Clinton, Ed Heath); (2) go to a disambiguation page (Ted Roosevelt, Dave Cameron); or (3) are articles about people who actually use that shortened name, with only a hatnote leading to the far-more-notable world leader (e.g. Ron Reagan, Steve Harper). Thanks, Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC) quant18 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GomezGómez – Almost all of the people listed here with this surname have the accent on the o, and the surname is Spanish in nature. Even the lead use of the name includes it. While the U.S. spelling is different, the most common spelling is with the accent, and this article should reflect that. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pellet stovePellet heating – The name pellet stove alone is not appropriate since it only refers to single ovens, but there is many different systems like furnaces or central heating system. Pellet heating would allow to describe all different types of pellet stoves, pellet boiler and pellet furnaces. I would like to update the site with information from the German Wikipdia ((Pelletheizung)) which also means Pellet heating, Pellet stove would mean Pelletofen. I also checked on Google, Google results for pellet heating: 8 million, pellet boiler: 1.8 million and pellet stove 1.2 million results. Geneva2106 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GreyGray – As discussed in the previous section, the article uses US English throughout, but is named with the UK/European spelling. McGeddon (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Athens TramAthens tram – This article needs to be retitled due to the word "tram" not being a proper noun in this context (i.e. MOS:PN) – nowhere does the operator of the Athens modern tram system refer to the system as "Athens Tram" at its website. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC) IJBall (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pa‘u RidersPau riders – * Either you should ignore all modern Hawaiian orthography and write it as Pau riders like Luau and Alii and basically how 19th century and earlier 20th century sources wrote it or write it in its correct meaning per Hawaiian dictionaries....Pau is one the most used examples of misuse of ʻokina's and kahakō's in the Hawaiian language. See meaning all forms of Pau. The article should either be titled Pau riders (ignoring ʻokina's and kahakō's and any attention to Hawaiian meaning like Luau or Alii) or in its correct form. The halfway compromise Paʻu (soot and drudgery) just garble the meaning of the word and dishonors the Hawaiian language. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1978–1990The Go-Betweens 1978–1990 – Apologies for burdening RM with another year title, but the biography of the band and the Mojo Collection treat "The Go-Betweens 1978–1990" as the full title David Nichols The Go-Betweens p.217 "July 1990 saw the release of The Go-Betweens 1978-1990 on double LP, 217 218 CD, and cassette (each with a slightly different track listing) in a number of key territories. This collection marked the first album release of several tracks which Forster and MacLennan clearly thought of as important to their story including "The Sound of Rain" which they had recorded for Beserkley twelve years earlier" and The Mojo Collection: 4th Edition p.530 "Further listening: Liberty Belle And The Black Diamond Express (1986); Tallulah (1987); Go-Betweens 1978–1990 (1990); Robert Forster – Danger In The Past (1990)." Likewise Colin Larkin The Virgin encyclopedia of eighties music 1997 Page 210 ...also per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY that the subject of the article be recognizable to the generally informed reader, not the absolute specialist. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1992–2002Underworld 1992–2002 – Another example of playing hide the artist, over zealous application of a guideline WP:SONGDAB at the expense of policy WP:AT RECOGNIZABILITY. A subtitle for a compilation like "1992–2002" never occurs as a standalone self sufficient title like a standalone album Underneath the Radar, Change the Weather or Beaucoup Fish. A compilation by definition is a collection based on the name of the band. Usually it occurs in sources together with band name SPIN March 2004 - Page 94 "Underworld, 1992-2002 These guys have long been techno's most aesthetically ambitious populists." CMJ New Music Report - 17 Nov 2003 - Page 8 "UNDERWORLD 1992-2002 After years of rocking our heads off to dance music of all types, the realization has come about that the only act that never wears thin is Underworld." even in Billboard the name of the band is actually repeated in the album title cover "1992–2002"&hl Top Electronic Albums Chart.. UNDERWORLD: Underworld 1992-2002. WP:SONGDAB really needs editing to state that a subtitle such as for a compilation "FOOBAND The Absolute Best" "FOOBAND Acoustic Live 2012" "FOOBAND The B-sides Vol.II" is not a standalone authorial title and requires the name of the band to be recognisable. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Time could not be ascertained[edit]


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk|close=1}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "Frédéric Gounongbe signs contract for two seasons" (in dutch). 2014-05-04. 
  2. ^ "Zulte Waregem signs Frédéric Gounongbe" (in dutch). 2012-03-23. 
  3. ^ "A team players" (in dutch). none. 
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^ Valbonnais (1722), Tome II, p. 9, footnote n, citing "Archives Cam. Cartæ Dalphinatus ab an. 1220 ad an. 1230".
  8. ^ Cox, Eugene L, (1974). The Eagles of Savoy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. ISBN 0691052166. p 24
  9. ^ Chevalier, U. ed. (1913-1926). Regeste dauphinois, Valence, Vienne. no. 6973