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 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 21 September 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.

September 21, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)1834 Safed pogrom1834 looting of Safed
    Background: The article began as Safed Great Plunder, was moved without consensus with this comment, and was immediately contested. The dispute over the move was based on (1) that the Hebrew wikipedia name uses the term "הביזה" which means looting / plunder, and (2) that per definitions of pogrom, the term pogrom is inconsistent in usage and interpretation when applied retrospectively / metaphorically as it is here.Sources: No single name was found to meet the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. The list above at #Article name is a list of the descriptive words used to describe this event from a review of the sources in the article and others on google books. It shows:# Only 4 sources call this a pogrom, and three of them have problems (one is a controversial scholar with a motive for implying Islamic antisemitism, another uses inverted commas, and another is not clear from the quote whether he is referring to this event or another event in 1833)# The most commonly used term is "looting" (9 sources). More broadly, 19 sources (16 in English) have been found using the term looting or its synonymsHence I propose we move this article to "1834 looting of Safed". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Black Hereford (hybrid)Black Hereford cattle (British) – "Hybrid" is incorrect, and these are both mixed breeds distinguished primarily by region. The subject presently at Black Hereford (hybrid) is not a hybrid animal (a mix of wild and domestic stock) at all, it's a new domestic breed developed by crossing two earlier domestic breeds. And so is the other one, presently at Black Hereford (breed). Even if the former were a hybrid, the extant title would fail WP:DAB and WP:RECOGNIZABLE; there's no point in a disambiguation that is itself ambiguous ("hybrid what?"). We would still use "cattle" as a disambiguator, since cattle hybrids are treated as cattle, not as some strange new category of creature, in reliable sources, and this treatment is consistent, on- and off-wiki, with that of hybrid dogs (classified as dogs, e.g. the wolfdog), cats (classified as domestic cats, e.g. the Bengal cat), etc. Both of the current titles also fail WP:NATURAL policy by using parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is available. Alternative names Black Hereford (British breed) and Black Hereford (American breed) could also be used in theory, but fail for one of the same reasons "(hybrid)" does, as they beg the question "breed of what?", and do not help the reader at all. There is an ongoing status quo ante RM discussion at Talk:Teeswater sheep that raises the same WP:NATURAL issue, but it's not a discussion on the merits, but about whether to revert to parenthetical disambiguation pending such a discussion, and thus has no impact on this RM.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)The Tribune (Chandigarh)The Tribune – The page at "The Tribune" was moved to "The Tribune (Chandigarh)" in June 2014. The page that has replaced it at "The Tribune" is categorised as a list, but is formatted as, and has the function of, a disambiguation page. If this is intended to be a list the it should follow WP:LISTNAME and have a title starting with "List of", maybe "List of publications colloquially known as The Tribune". If it is intended to be a disambiguation page then it should not include the slew of partial title matches, and once these are removed, leaving only publications with the actual name "The Tribune", by far the most notable is the daily newspaper distributed all over North India. I request that this move be reversed. (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Buff turkeyBuff (turkey) – Pleace move back to the breeds name. There are other buff turkeys out there. Not just that one (American) breed. For example:* the German/European Buff Turkey* the English Buff Turkey (= nl: Engelsekalkoen buff) (see Listing of European Poultry Breeds and Coulours)* at least there is a buff czech turkey as well [1]# natural disambiguation is not a valid reason with the matter at hand, because the article it about that one special breed, not any buff turkey# like virtually all other animal breed articles, was wrong before a lot of unreferenced moves as well, like discussed there PigeonIP (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bronze turkeyBronze (turkey) – Pleace move back to the breeds name. There are a lot of other bronze turkeys out there. Not just that one (American) breed. For example: * Cambridge bronze, * the European or German bronze, that is also registered in GB* and the Black winged bronze* I am not sure, if there are Czech and French bronze varieties of turkey as well(ref: Listing of Europeen breeds and colours) # natural disambiguation is not a valid reason with the matter at hand, because the article it about that one special breed, not any bronze turkey# like virtually all other animal breed articles, was wrong before a lot of unreferenced moves as well, like discussed there PigeonIP (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Polled livestockNaturally polled livestockPolled livestock, and consequently many other articles that link to it, are mix-and-matching breeds of naturally polled (genetically hornless) livestock, with livestock that have been polled, i.e. subject to surgical livestock dehorning, and these are not related topics except etymologically, even if some sources confusingly use the same term for both of them (see also Poll (livestock), about that part of the head but without reference to horns or hornlessness at all). This article focuses mostly on, and needs to focus exclusively on, livestock that are (innately) polled, not livestock that might "get polled" by someone; we don't have articles on categories of any X to which some Y "could" happen. Failure to follow WP:NOT#DICT here is causing a genuine problem, of what should be an encyclopedia article about one topic trying to be a dictionary entry about conflicting meanings of a term, with the result that the reader doesn't know which meaning we intent when linking to the article, which is a mixture of article and disambiguation page. Because the phrase "polled livestock" has two distinctly contradictory meanings in reliable sources, the current title fails WP:PRECISE.

    Whether we move this to Naturally polled livestock or even just Naturally polled, we should then have a simple disambiguation page at Polled livestock, distinguishing between Naturally polled livestock and animals subject to Livestock dehorning, plus listing Poll (livestock) as a see-also. This would be a distinctly useful exception to WP:TWODABS, because henceforth any linking to Polled livestock will result in a DLP bot notice, allowing the editor who did it to instead link to the proper article easily.

    Regardless of the move, every livestock article that makes reference to that variety being "polled", without clarifying whether this means naturally polled or traditionally subject to dehorning (some breeds are are, some not), needs to be tagged with {{clarify}} until sources are checked and the text clarified. It's a very major difference.

     — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Pink BnNApink BnN – This is the official name of this sub-group. In the official website of the group Apink (, the section Discography, they write Apink BnN is the group performs the single "My Darling", not Pink BnN. K34c l4m v13c t0t 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Epic poetryEpic – There is no good reason why "epic" should be a disambiguation page. An "epic" is a long poem such as the Iliad, Beowulf, Paradise Lost, etc. (If you don't know what an epic exactly is, look it up in a decent dictionary.) The page "Epic poetry" clearly is the primary usage of "epic", and ought thus be moved to the page "epic". Michael! (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)CaregivingCaregiving (sociology) – This article is currently titled "caregiving" while another article is titled "Caregiver". The content of these articles are completely different concepts. Confusingly, in discussion of either of these distinct concepts, these words are used interchangeably so effectively both articles have the same name. Consequently one should be moved. I propose to move this one because it describes the general sociological concept of caring for another person, which is the more narrow and less popular topic. The content of this article discusses an academic concept in sociology which is of limited interest outside of academic discussion. In August 2014 this article got 2300 pageviews. I expect that many of those pageviews were people searching for the article currently at "caregiver". The caregiver article is about the social role of providing mostly physical care to another person. While this is also a sociological concept, it is also a major financial sector in every economy, a target of regulation and legislation on national and international levels, and a field of health care specialization and professional practice. In August 2014 this article got 9900 views. Most articles to be found in Google Scholar by searching for either "caregiving" or "caregiver" are about the concept of providing physical assistance to a person with a disability.I want people who look for this article to find it but I want people who are looking for the more popular and broadly relevant article on "caregiver" to find that one first, so "caregiving" should redirect to "caregiver" and this article should be renamed "Caregiving (sociology)" or disambiguated in any other way. Comments from anyone? Thanks. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CaregiverCaregiving – Caregiving should be the top-level category for all concepts, and as this caregiver article contains the most coverage of the topic, it should be named after the general concept and not only the occupation. --Relisted. DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MyrmeciaMyrmecia (ant) – Proposed move article content to Myrmecia (ant), direct Myrmecia to Myrmecia (disambiguation). Myrmecia is a genus of ant, a skin disorder, and a genus of algae. Myrmecia is a very important algal genus for lichenologists. A Google Scholar search of "Myrmecia" AND "Algae OR lichen" produces 952 results, and 736 results for "Myrmecia AND lichen". This is a large number for single algae genus. This is a huge number for a lichenized fungus associate. The number of results may be expected to grow because this algae is a key example in recent hot topic philosophical problems related to evolution of symbiotic associations, to the species problem, and to the debate on classification of lichens according to ancestry of the fungal component, rather than on any other species criterion for the symbiotic association, which is related to the philosophy of natural kinds. The Myrmecia skin disorder (basically, a wart), has an interesting place in history[3]. The ant will likely always produce the most number of Google results, because of Schopenhauer if for no other reason, but a content move and redirect to disambiguation are well-justified. FloraWilde (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gemma DoyleGemma Doyle (politician) – No evidence that this politician is more notable than the Gemma Doyle books. On page views, 'Gemma Doyle' gets 800-odd views, but 'Gemma Doyle trilogy' gets over 1200, despite the politician being on a primary page, and therefore presumably getting at least some people who were looking for the books or the book character. Gemma Doyle (disambiguation) could then be moved to the primary page. Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Frida LyngstadAnni-Frid Lyngstad – As per previous section with no response since 2013. This is a mess. It is not an established fact that her nickname "Frida" (which has been used once as an album title) is better known to English readers than her famous first name Anni-Frid. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)C.J. PerryLana (wrestling) – Common name. Perry gained exposure by her work in WWE as Lana (the article was created when she debuted in WWE). She has worked for months in the main roster, even she appeared in the news due the storyline with Putin. Her work as Lana has more exposure than her previous works. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Renee PaquetteRenee Young – Common name. Renee gained exposure by her work in WWE as Renee Young (the article was created when she debuted in WWE), where she is in charge of social media, PPV Kick Offs and now she is in commentary team. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)James L. Farmer, Jr.James Farmer – Ok, so I'd like to address the two separate sections of this move request separately.*Name change::Per WP:Common name, this subject is best known as simply James Farmer. This is the name used in sources ranging from the FBI's files on him to the name he used for his own works to documents and coverage from the time he was most prominent to foreign coverage. While this is not clearly the case from raw numbers of google results, where a search for ""James farmer" civil rights" only gets about 15,000 more hits than one for ""James L. Farmer, Jr." civil rights", a search in google news or google books confirms that James Farmer is far more common in substantial, academic, and significant coverage (ie not just inclusion in a list or statistical data or copies of the Wikipedia page or unreliable sources). Even the middle initial loving New York Times simply uses James Farmer in his obituary. This page seems to have in fact been initially titled James Farmer, but was likely moved after an editor raised the concern seen at the top of this page around 10 years ago. Wikipedia policy, however, is to prefer the common name with disambiguation if necessary rather than a move to a less common name.*Primary topic::There's little need for debate on the notability of the subject -- as a member of the Big Six (civil rights) and one of the main leaders of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) he's arguably one of the more significant figures in American history. However, there are numerous other pages named James Farmer or some variant thereof, so we need numbers to back up the argument that he is the primary topic. With incoming links, Farmer has over 300. The next highest has 72 (the basketball player) and the rest have under 10. Looking at page views, the argument seems incredibly clear. Farmer Jr. received 12344 views in the past 90 days (considering the subject has been dead since before Wikipedia was around I assumed it was safe to call the current period relatively unbiased). The rest of the pages have received under 1000 (many under 500) except for his father's, which received just under 2,500. While his father certainly does not earn his notability from simply his son, I think there is little argument that the son would obviously be the primary over the father.::Turning to the less clear cut numbers, I started with simply a google search for "James Farmer" in quotation marks. It was not until the third page of results that a result on any of the other notable topics came up, which was the website of James N. Farmer's company. The results then shift again to James L. Farmer Jr, with a few on his father peppered in. Google Books is a bit tougher for me to search (in part probably because I'm not good at it) since I keep getting unrelated results about farmers named James even when using quotes, but all the sources on the notable subjects, especially the sources that provide significant coverage, all refer to the civil rights leader.::I then moved on to using distinguishing terms to get a sense of google results, adding different terms after James farmer. Here are some of the results:::*Civil rights: About 1,050,000 results:::*Salford: About 90,100 results:::*Edublogs: About 5,490 results :::*Mavericks: About 126,000 results::Note - While I initially was including J. Doyne Farmer in my searches, since he is linked on the disambiguation page, I realized that not only does he not go by James Farmer, he is pretty much never even acknowledged with his first full name. While the same argument could be applied to Jim Farmer, with Doyne Farmer there is such a tangential link to the name James Farmer that I eventually got lazy and stopped including him. It is not mentioned on any of his official sites, and a search for his most common name on google (J. Doyne Farmer) does not bring up anything mentioning a full first name for at least the first 6 pages of results. It seems very unlikely that anyone would attempt to get to Doyne Farmer's page by including James, let alone excluding Doyne. But, to be clear I'm not hiding anything, I'll note that he has 30 incoming links from the article space and around 1800 page views in the last 90 days (I can't get the view site to load suddenly so please correct me on that if needed). Yaksar (let's chat) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)X (Ed Sheeran album)Multiply (Ed Sheeran album) – This article's name should be moved for title clarity. The album's name is pronounced as "Multiply", not as "Ex"; per MOS:TM, as an encyclopedia, we cannot expect the reader to have to read the article first to understand what the title means ... or how it is pronounced. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)KomaroleKomarolu – As per census India website and google searches. Komarolu is the correct one. Vin09 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sector instrumentDouble-focusing mass spectrometer – I tried to make this move, but it was rejected, apparently because five years ago the page was moved from 'double-focusing...' to the present one. That was a bad move. The article is almost entirely about double-focusing mass spectrometers, including types that are not actually sector instruments. This title needs to be changed back! Radiogenic (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Are 'Friends' Electric?Are "Friends" Electric? – per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, we should use straight double quotes in titles where quotation marks are used, regardless of dialect or region or anything. The article body is fine, since single quotes are used within double quotes anyway.On the other hand, the title with double quotes doesn’t appear to be in use in my Googling, and while MOS:TM says to use as close to standard formatting as is reasonable, it also advises against using stylizations that are not in use. (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Absolute SolitudeAbsolute Isolator – "Absolute Solitude" was the name of the Web Novel series. For publication, the word Solitude (孤独 Kodoku?) was replaced with Isolator (孤独者 Kodoku-sha?), using katakana furigana on the cover of the novel, アイソテイタ. Aditionally, the cover states says "The Isolator: realization of absolute solitude". For this, the page should be renamed to Absolute Isolator, with Absolute Solitude redirecting to it. Ragef33 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Romeldale/CVMRomeldale – Malformed name; we don't list alternative names in the title with "/", but mention them in the lead section and redirect from them to the real article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Harz Red mountain cattleHarz cattle – Name of article appears to be novel synthesis, and article is addressing multiple topics, the Harz cattle, and the "Mountain" breeding type of Red cattle (which could be compressed to a title of Mountain Red cattle probably), a hybrid of Harz cattle and Danish Red cattle. I have no objections to the article covering both the Harz breed, and the hybrid in a subsection, but the title can't be a made-up mishmash. It doesn't appear in any of the four cited sources, of which only one checks out anyway. PS: Even if this name were kept, it would need to be Harz Red Mountain cattle per pretty much every other domestic animal breed name on the system (capitalize the unique part of the breed name, but not the species).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Equity and gender feminismEquity feminismProcedural nomination; discussion has run since June, but was not tagged as an RM and will never close until tagged as such and put into the RM discussion queue. See below for rationale from actual nominator.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AmoebaAmoeba (genus) – The article Amoeba, as the lead and taxobox make clear, is about a single taxon, the genus Amoeba, which contains a relatively small number of Amoebozoan species. However, microbiologists and others customarily use the word "amoeba" (lower case, no italics) to describe a common type of cell (one that uses pseudopodia to move and feed). This sense of "amoeba" is a much larger and more important subject, encompassing many thousands of species, very few of which are in genus Amoeba. The article that covers this subject is Amoeba (amoeboid organism), which I believe should be the primary topic. Most of the existing Wikipedia links to "amoeba" are not actually intended for the genus Amoeba at all, but for other amoeboid taxa, or for "amoeba" in the looser sense of the word. I reviewed the first 100 of the the incoming links to Amoeba. The only links genuinely intended for the genus "Amoeba" were in the few pages that use the Template:Amoebozoa, in which Amoeba is included among many other taxa. The template can be easily adjusted to link to Amoeba (genus). A few links were aimed at the species Amoeba proteus (a common experimental organism), and one was for a men's magazine called "Amoeba." If there is consensus on the move, I will review all incoming links to make sure they are properly directed. The page receives a fair bit of traffic (lots of school kids doing biology homework) so it's important to get it right. See: Deuterostome (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AntibondingAntibonding orbital – The term Antibonding is not used as a noun in chemistry, but rather as an adjective to modify Orbital. The article is actually about Antibonding Orbitals. Dirac66 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Salim MatarSelim Matar – According to the personal website of Selim Matar, his publications and the french version of Wikipédia, "Selim Matar" is a lot more used than "Salim Matar". Bass39 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mecca MasjidMakkah Masjid, Hyderabad – There are various mosques around the world with the name Makkah Masjid, including for example Makkah Masjid, Chennai. I suggest Makkah, rather than Mecca as this is in the info box, but a disambiguation page should be made. The current page Makkah Masjid only points to this one example, but should be a disambiguation page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Operation PoloIndian integration of Hyderabad – Much of the article is background, prelude, and aftermath. The battle only takes up one section and is the weakest part of the article, with very few references. The aftermath is very briefly described. The suggestion is to write a comprehensive article on the integration, with the background and prelude, as well as the aftermath, described in more detail. With the new name, political factors can be given more space, rather than purely military matters. The battle can be a section in the article, like it is now. Currently the page has a military name, and is included in Category:Violence against Hindus, Category:Violence against Muslims and Category:Religious violence in India, which is not ideal because most of the violence did not come from the Indian military. There is precedence for this name, see Indian integration of Junagadh, though that article is very weak. Here is a link to "integration". Kingsindian (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chromophobia (fear)Chromophobia – The target title is occupied by an appropriate disambiguation page, however, the "fear" appears to be far more notable in terms of long-term significance than the Chromophobia (film) and Chromophobia (album). The subject described in this article appears to be the root of the concept, both the film and album titles are derived from the meaning and is evidence for the primacy of that meaning. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate for the subject to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tanbircdq (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nothing Broken But My HeartNothing Broken but My Heart – "but" is a both a coordinating conjunction and a preposition, and WP:NCCAPS discourages capitalizing coordinating conjunctions and prepositions of four letters or less, like "but". In this case, the title of the song treats "but" like a preposition, and "but" has just three letters. However, the cover art of the Celine Dion song capitalized it into "But". Also, unlike dot the i, the current title is not unique and has no reason to be unique. Sources do not mention why "but" is capitalized. Shall we apply the guideline to the song, or shall "common sense" overcome the guideline? Speaking of common sense, I wonder if capitalizing "but" matters to the masses, especially when English is dumbed down nowadays. Edit: I didn't realize that "but" is also an adverb. Nevertheless, the title doesn't treat it as an adverb, so "but" shall not be treated as an adverb. George Ho (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Better Than TodayBetter than Today – The title treats "than" like a preposition, WP:NCCAPS says not to capitalize prepositions of four letters or less, and "than" is listed in the list of English prepositions. If it was treated as a subordinating conjunction, then "Than" may be capitalized. However, the whole title is a fragment sentence, not complete. Somehow, titles, like Star Trek Into Darkness, are encouraging people to dumb down English language mainly because... I don't know, probably of fandom of Star Trek. Unlike dot the i (the film), "Better Than Today" has no reason to be unique. Whilst "dot the i" is shown on film poster, the single cover of the Kylie Minogue song says "BETTER THAN TODAY" (all caps). Grammatically, "better" is a complement (also an obsolete alternative spelling of different word "compliment"), and "today" is an object of the preposition, which is "than". Somehow, I haven't met someone who knows "complement" nowadays, and I don't know who treats it as the spelling of "compliment". In the wake of Talk:Love You like a Love Song, perhaps I am requesting a seemingly ridiculous (hopefully understandable) proposal, like this. George Ho (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dimension (mathematics and physics)Dimension – per WP:BROADCONCEPT, basically. Note that the article was previously moved away from dimension after light discussion above, and dimension still redirects to it. Also, the current parenthetical disambiguation, "mathematics and physics", is erroneous as the article includes sections on literature and philosophy. For those concerned about primary topic status, beyond even the indications of WP:BROADCONCEPT, my cursory examination of page views indicated this article to be more viewed than all other articles combined on Dimension (disambiguation). For those concerned about topical specificity, may I suggest peeling off separate, dedicated (single-word disambiguated) articles as necessary. ENeville (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mike Barnett (ice hockey)Michael Barnett (sports executive) – "Mike" is an informal name, Michael is the proper name. Additionally, "(ice hockey)" is limited in it's scope (Michael Barnett has worked as an agent for athletes of other spots as well as non-athlete entertainers). Sports Executive is more accurate as his most recent work has been managing and scouting for various teams. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Jjbarne1 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alan Dawa DolmaAlan (Chinese singer) – She has never been credited as Alan Dawa Dolma in English, her stage name in English since her Japanese days in English has always been alan (with a lower case "a"). I do understand the political sensitivity of Tibetan vs. Chinese but that shouldn't be reason not to move the page to the right place, and the Chinese label shouldn't be controversial since she clearly identifies with it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Moon Tae-jongJarod Stevenson – Moon Tae-jong is the name on his South Korean passport. While he was born in Korea, he didn't become a Korean citizen until 2011 when he was around 36 (near the end of his long career) so that he can represent Korea internationally, while still retaining his American citizenship.[5] Therefore he didn't really change his legal name, just having to adopt a Korean name for his naturalization. Being the English wikipedia, I think the "English name" takes precedence (especially since he's not that fluent in Korean). The French, Turkish and Italian pages all use "Jarod Stevenson" so it's also not like he only became notable after playing for the Korea national team. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Timmyshin (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sound of the Desert (TV series)Sound of the Desert – There have been many English titles for this drama throughout its filming, and the only official English title the production company has given was "The Song of Desert" (see title in pictures), which was used when the Chinese title was still 星月传奇. Now that the official Chinese title has been changed to 风中奇缘, they have also changed the official English title, which is now the more grammatically correct Sound of the Desert, which is also a literal translation of the novel it is based on, 大漠谣. One of the earlier titles, Story of a Wolf Girl, was NEVER an official title released by any official sources. HuoyuDMY (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kitchen Confidential: Adventures in the Culinary UnderbellyKitchen Confidential (book) – I normally dislike proposing "(book)" because almost no one types it for any title. I disambiguated the book because Kitchen Confidential (TV series) is equally popular as the book. I did use "(book)", but I figured that I can use subtitles instead of parenthesis disambiguator. However, due to Talk:Like a Virgin (book), probably "(book)" should substitute for the subtitle "Adventures in the Culinary Underbelly" due to the length of the current article title. I thought nominating the article for deletion or tagging it as possibly non-notable. However, the book inspired the fictional TV series, and it may have existing reviews. Despite the article's current shape, the book may be notable at its own right. Therefore, I am doing the test proposal to inspire other proposals on books with long titles. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SfogliatelleSfogliatella – There is no reason why we should use the plural form, which also in the literature and in the article is recognised as such. If this were an americanism, then it should be used and declined using the singular verb (e.g. "Sfogliatelle is a cake"), but this is not the case, so it is implicit that the singular form sfogliatella is known also in english. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Alex2006 (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rachel Lee (actress)Loletta Lee – Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Look at the references and external links, as well as the Japanese, Russian, and Azerbaijani titles. The relatively recent "English name change" should not carry enough weight to move the title as well, considering her career was most notable when she was much younger under "Loletta Lee". Not to mention per WP:NATURAL disambiguation is best avoided. Timmyshin (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dong Chang (Tang dynasty)Dong Chang – Per WP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Hatnotes would suffice. Timmyshin (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Li Cunxin (dancer)Li CunxinWP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." The dancer is clearly primary in English-language sources, and I'm actually the one who wrote the other Li Cunxin page. Timmyshin (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chess (Mac OS)Chess (OS X) – I'm suggesting a move for a couple of OS X applications. OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known and accepted. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Preview (Mac OS)Preview (OS X) – I'm suggesting this pattern of moves for a few OS X articles. OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Calendar (Mac OS)Calendar (OS X) – OS X is the current name for the operating system, and it's well-known. Mac OS might be appropriate if this was an app that remained from 'classic' Mac OS, but it's not: it only ever ran on OS X. Blythwood (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dashboard (Mac OS)Dashboard (OS X) – OS X is the current, official and widely-known name for the operating system. Mac OS is inappropriate as it was never actually a part of Classic Mac OS. I'm suggesting a move for this and a couple of other OS X-only applications on the same principle. Blythwood (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lü ZushanLu Zushan – Sources available all use the spelling "Lu Zushan". I was unable to find a single source which uses the current spelling with the diaresis. see WP:COMMONNAME if you are unsure how the above relates to the naming of this article. This change doesn't create ambiguity. Just do a simple web search to find out for yourself. He's not a popular topic in the English-language media, so you gotta take what you can get. Regardless of which spelling is more correct, it's not up to us to try to change the common spelling. see also WP:UE and WP:NOR. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Diagonal MethodDiagonal method – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upcased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match WP's formatting of laws, methods, rules, hypotheses, etc. Tony (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fort ColvilleFort Colvile (Hudson Bay Company) – Numerous wiki pages are linking to the Hudson Bay Company Fort Colvile, when they really want to link to a not-currently existing Fort Colville (US Army) page. I'm drafting a Fort Colville (US Army) page, but keep finding wrong links to the Hudson Bay page. Additionally, I am requesting a change in spelling for the HBC fort. It was spelled Colvile (one L ) in all HBC documents. Americans added the second L to their fort's name, the valley's name, and the district's name. Even reliable source documents on the HBC Fort Colvile page, like the map, show the correct spelling of Colvile. The HBC wiki page has the correct spelling of Colvile. More importantly, the actual archives for the Hudson Bay Company are at the Manitoba Archives,, and they only use Colvile. Srichart4 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Andrea HarrisonAndrea (The Walking Dead) – With this edit, Goldenboy moved the article to Andrea Harrison based on a video game (The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct) revealing her last name as Harrison. And here, he added a citation for the name change. This move (the article title change) is a clear-cut violation of the WP:Common name policy. Name-wise, Andrea is clearly most well known simply by her first name. And I don't think we should be giving WP:Undue weight to what a video game states to be her last name. This move, because it has a chance of being contested (like I am doing now), should have gone through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process; that page states, "Use this process if there is any reason to believe that a move would be contested." Based on that, I would have moved the article back and then noted the WP:Common name policy here on the talk page. But I don't think that Goldenboy is familiar with the WP:Common name policy, and I didn't want to take the risk of him simply moving the article back to "Andrea Harrison" again. So I have started this move discussion instead. I will alert the WikiProjects that this talk page is tagged with to this discussion. From what I can see, the Andrea (The Walking Dead) article should follow the same path as the Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) article. Faith's last name was revealed in a role-playing game and has been used for subsequent material relating to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, but she is most commonly simply known as Faith and therefore that is the title of her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of largest known cosmic structures → ? – The "known" is not necessary, we can only list structures that we know about, so this would be called List of largest cosmic structures. The intro can specify that we don't know everything about the universe. Possibly call this List of longest cosmic structures as "largest" is not the same as "longest", and the list only specifies one dimension, making this a list of longest. Volumetrically, a long thin filament can be much smaller than a shorter spherical construct, or a long and wide construct. (this assumes "large" primarily deals with size, and not mass, where the most massive structures can be quite different.) -- (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taiwan Taoyuan International AirportTaoyuan International Airport – According to WP:UCRN, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. A search of "taoyuan airport" in Google news yields no particularly favorable name. There's "Taoyuan airport", "Taipei Taoyuan International Airport", "Taiwan Taoyuan Airport", "Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport" and "Taoyuan International Airport". Nevertheless, "Taoyuan International Airport" is cleaner and way more common in speech (nobody says the "Taiwan"). Not to mention the official name is already in the first sentence. Szqecs (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cereus (disambiguation)Cereus – Until recently there were two plant articles: an article about the genus Cereus at Cereus (genus), and an article about ceroid cacti (cacti with a columnar growth form) at "Cereus". However, this latter title was misleading; all reliable sources use "Cereus" as the genus name and either "ceroid cactus" or "ceriform cactus" for the more general group. No-one dissented for over a year from my comment at Talk:Ceroid cactus#Muddled article that the article was muddled and the name misleading. So I moved the article at "Cereus" to Ceroid cactus. Cereus is now a redirect to Ceroid cactus, although I think this is wrong. (My attempt to make it a redirect to Cereus (disambiguation) was reverted.)I've been through all the article space links to Cereus; as of now there are none. The great majority should have been to Cereus (genus); a minority should have been to Ceroid cactus; there were a couple which should have been to other uses of the term.I propose that this page, Cereus (disambiguation), should be moved to "Cereus". Although the major use of "Cereus" in Wikipedia is to for the plant genus, there are other uses, and I think the best link is to a disambiguation page. The alternative is to move Cereus (genus) to "Cereus". The present situation is the worst possible, since "ceroid cactus" is much less likely to be meant by "Cereus" and it encourages editors to make an incorrect wikilink. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)3Arena (Dublin)3Arena – The venue has been renamed from The O2 to the 3Arena. A new (and unnecessary) article was created at 3Arena, which now redirects to here. Despite this move request, a non-admin has moved the page from The O2 (Dublin) to 3Arena (Dublin). As disambiguation is not required, it should be moved to 3Arena. Snappy (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Super MarioSuper Mario (disambiguation) – I believe that the primary topic for the term "Super Mario" is Mario, the character from the video game series; the term "Super Mario" was highly recognized to represent the character as a name back during the character's creation in the 1980s. No other subject, even games that have included the Mario character, have not seemed to even come close to the level of notability/connection the synonymous connection between "Super Mario" and the Mario character. In addition, the fact that all games in the Super Mario (series) feature the eponymous character essentially puts the character as the primary topic by default. For this reasoning, I believe that this page should move to Super Mario (disambiguation) so that the "Super Mario" title can become a redirect towards Mario. Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 4 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.