Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:Moving a page. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. For route maps, see Wikipedia:Route diagram template.
Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.) Please read our article titling policy and our guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page. To request such help, please see Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus. To place a formal request for a potentially controversial page move, please see Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

To contest a close, the Move review process is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page[edit]


Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves[edit]

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

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again without following the procedures laid out in Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves[edit]


The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete/revert the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in Uncontroversial technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.
  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way, you can request the other page be deleted. This applies for example if the other page is a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. If it has a single history line, see WP:Move over redirect instead. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]


Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, as this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move[edit]

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

== Requested move ==
{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The subject/headline field should be left blank; a section header named "Requested move" will be created automatically. If there have been previous move discussions on the talk page, use == Requested move xxxx == where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion. Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically.

As an alternative, you can click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and insert

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 25 October 2014", along with a location for survey and discussion. Also note that the template must be substituted. The template will automatically include your signature.

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

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

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

October 25, 2014[edit]

October 24, 2014[edit]

October 23, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)RussophobiaAnti-Russian sentiment – this article is inconsistent with other articles on the same topic, e.g. Anti-French sentiment, anti-Mexican sentiment, etc. We need to rename this article to "Anti-Russian sentiment", because its content is not necessarily about an irrational phobia, and calling it such is not politically balanced and we need the proposed more neutral term. This article has been renamed back and forth over several years, this needs to stop, and the topic has already been discussed at length on this page. Willa wonky (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LiborLIBOR – LIBOR is clearly an acronym, and should be capitalized per standard English and Wikipedia practice. MOS:CAPS#Acronyms makes an exception for words that are treated as common nouns, like scuba and laser, but LIBOR isn't widely used enough for this, and would become libor according to this exception if it were – something I'm sure has no support. When it comes to matters of style, we routinely substitute our own style for that of sources, even in quotes, so even though WSJ and FT are self-inconsistent, even wrong in this case, I see no reason we should repeat their mistakes.

    (edit) Google nGrams and Scholar show 5:1 and 4:1 ratios favoring LIBOR (see comments below).

    Note that LIBOR market model is already correct.

    Also note that Libor is apparently a somewhat common Czech given name.

    I also believe we should be consistent in our usage (as LIBOR) within these and other Wikipedia articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Shangjing LongquanfuSanggyeong – I feel this page should be renamed Sanggyeong as nearly all links to it are Sanggyeong. It also seems inappropriate to use the Mandarin name and pronunciation as the title that is otherwise displayed as historically Korean. Parhe (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

October 22, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Raining Men (song) → ? – OK, I know this doesn't seem like it's helping anyone, me making a third move request in the space of a month, but the current title is not appropriate. One of the following two things needs to happen: 1. If you DON'T think there is potential confusion with It's Raining Men, then (as there are no other articles specifically called "Raining Men") move the page to Raining Men. or 2. If you DO think there is potential confusion with It's Raining Men, then (given that that's a song too) move the page to Raining Men (Rihanna song). Unreal7 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)S ClubS Club 7 – Not just because they're back as S Club 7 now, but to be perfectly honest, almost everyone remembers them as S Club 7 don't they? Unreal7 (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TRANSFACTransfac – Per MOS:TMRULES: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Ground Zero | t 22:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Android LollipopAndroid 5.0 – Consistency: I had intended for this article to be located at its version number, not its codename. The 4.1 article only uses its codename as the article title because it spans three versions that shared the same codename, in which the other two were not notably different enough to be separately notable. As such, the 4.0 article is not at Android Ice Cream Sandwich but Android 4.0. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 21, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)California Institute for Quantitative BiosciencesQB3 – I would like to swap "California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences" with its redirect "QB3" but can't figure out how to do it myself. The long form of the name is now deprecated; that is, the organization's leadership does not use it and has sanctioned the primary use of only the short form of the name. (The motivation is the confusion that results from multiple names appearing in scientific publications and the media). – Scerevisiae (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Portal:Latin American musicPortal:Latin music – In mid-2012, the Latin American music task force was changed to the Latin music project to cover "Latin music" as a music genre rather than simply a regional music project. The major reason for this was because of the complicated and different meanings of "Latin music" and so that artists who are considered Latin artist but aren't Hispanic or Latino can be covered too. Moxy created the portal back when the project started as a task force for Latin American music. I tried moving it to a new name last year, but it ended up causing red pages to appear and was moved back to "Portal:Latin American music". I need this portal and all of its subpages renamed to "Portal:Latin music" to match the project's current scope. The portal will be based on Latin music (genre) rather than Latin American music. Erick (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Singapore LionsSingapore FA – For consistency across all articles of the state teams which took part in the Malaysia Cup competitions, and per WP:COMMONNAME. The other articles are named "XXX FA" (FA being the equivalent of FC in other football club articles). For example, Sarawak FA (nicknamed The Crocs), Pahang FA (nicknamed The Elephants). The Football Association of Singapore, as with the other state FAs, entered their state team in the competitions. They were know simply as "Singapore" in the media, or referred by their nickname, "The Lions". I believe the reason behind choosing "Singapore Lions" and not "Singapore FA" as the initial page title was in order not to confuse readers between the team and the football association. A {{about}} note could be placed at the Football Association of Singapore and the Singapore FA pages to explain the differences between the two. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 15:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) LRD 07:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Talbot (Dragoon Guards)John Talbot (died 1714) – Though Sir John Talbot was a serving army officer, he would seem to be at least as notable as an active Member of Parliament during the Restoration. WP:NCPDAB says that "For historical figures when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death." The current disambiguator is inappropriate in any case, as the two regiments of Horse of which Talbot was colonel were not redesignated as Dragoon Guards until after his death. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Opera hat (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Steve PerrySteve Perry (disambiguation) – The musician Steve Perry is the clear primary topic. Page views from January of this year (chosen to avoid any recentism bias from when Perry unexpectedly performed for the first time in years in March) give the musician 62240 views, while the highest among the other topics with the same name was 1664. The Journey musician also dominates google search results -- I went through 5 pages without finding any results for the other topics. A google books search was initially unclear, since there are results that come up by Steve Perry (author), as google favors exact matches to Author names over mentions in text (logically). However, all of the books that come up are the authors own works, not actually books that discuss him. Pretty much all the early results that are coming up and are actually about a Steve Perry are about the singer, however.  ::Note: The disambiguation page also lists a pornographic film maker Ben Dover, who for a period in the 90s used the pseudonym "Steve Perry" for directing the films he starred in as "Ben Dover". However, he does not seem to factor much into results, as he is pretty much referred to as Ben Dover or one of his other pseudonym's 99% of the time. Regardless, however, he does not receive nearly as many page views (12253 in the chosen month, from which it can be obviously assumed a mere fraction are coming via a search for Steve Perry). The third listed move is pretty simple. The rubber manufacturer is not clearly the primary topic, either through page views or google results, versus the other figures at that name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Yaksar (let's chat) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Horst Böhme (SS officer)Horst Böhme – While it is true that this page is newly created in the English Wikipedia, it is quite clear to me that a leading perpetrator of the Holocaust such as this will be viewed more than 86 times in a month, which is the page view total for the chemist of the same name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Hoops gza (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Froot (song)Froot – This article was located at the plain title earlier this week, although an article had been (prematurely) created for the parent record by the same name. Since the album article has been redirected, the plain title should be restored for the title track. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC) – WikiRedactor (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 20, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)The Apple Tree (anthology)The Birds and Other Stories – Recent British and American publications use the proposed title. Even if it is not the title of the anthology's first publication, the title has been commonly used. Perhaps we should attract readers rather than restrict ourselves to our own editing. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mutius von TommasiniMuzio Tommasini – Commonest form of his name in Google books is the Italian form. German form 615 hits to Italian form 1600 hits, though in both a lot of hits are for non English sources. There is still a question of whether to use Muzio de' Tommasini, or longer name Muzio Giuseppe Spirito de Tommasini. The proposed name is that in the Italian Wikipedia. The current name was carried over in the translation from the German Wikipedia. Imc (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mike Dalton (wrestler)Tyler Breeze – Common Name. NXT recieved by far more coverage than FCW, also is a Network TV Program (more people watching than FCW TV). Breeze is a top guy in NXT, wrestled in NXT Specials (even RAW). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Masato OnoderaYAMATO (wrestler) – YAMATO (wrestler) already redirects to this article. Although Masato Onodera is his real name, he only wrestled only 5 matches under that name. He changed his name to Yamato Onodera, wrestled 81 matches and won zero championships. He then changed his name to YAMATO, and wrestled 1201 matches, winning Dragon Gate's top singles (3x, joint most reigns), doubles (5x, joint most reigns) and trios (4x) championships. He has also won the top singles championship in Dragon Gate USA. Having his name capitalized (as it is presented) also helps him disambiguate from other wrestlers named Yamato. starship.paint ~ regal 13:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)XikangSikang – This page name is in pinyin, but it represents a historical name preceding the arrival of the PRC and hasn't been extant for a hundred years. We should stick to common usage in this situation. Ogress smash! 10:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Ogress smash! 10:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Brooke Adams (wrestler)Brooke Tessmacher – Achieved most success under this name. 1 Knockouts Championship and 1 Knockouts Tag Championship as Brooke Tessmacher. Miss Tessmacher is the short form. She had only 3 televised matches in WWE under the name Brooke compared to the 61 televised matches in TNA. This is also a natural disambiguation. starship.paint ~ regal 02:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Narrative modeNarration – "Narration" is obviously the more commonly recognizable name to encompass everything that "narrative mode" does on this article. Oxford Dictionaries online defines "narration" as "the action or process of narrating a story."[8] Narration works nicely to incorporate narrative point of view, narrative voice, and narrative time, all of which this article now covers. Thoughts? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Wolfdog (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

October 19, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Kevin Briggs (police officer)Kevin Briggs – The record producer, Kevin "She'kspere" Briggs is not the primary topic, a Google search, Google News search and Google Videos search return an overwhelming number of sources for the police officer (compared to others of that name). Additionally, it appears that the record producer rarely uses his name without his nickname. Were this on its own insufficient, only two articles exist for individuals of this name which makes the dabpage unnecessary disambiguation. James (TC) • 8:29 AM • 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)+
  • (Discuss)Battle of Vernon (Florida)Battle of Vernon – There may be other cities and towns of Vernon, like Vernon, California. However, there are no other articles titled "Battle of Vernon", and there are no other known conflicts in other Vernons. If you want "Florida" to remain, how about the comma-separated disambiguation per WP:COMMADIS, Battle of Vernon, Florida? The current title is parenthetical disambiguation. In this case, it's disambiguated by a U.S. state, not a year. Therefore, if "Florida" shall be kept, then parenthetical disambiguation must not be used. George Ho (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Battle of Newton (Alabama)Battle of Newton – There is no other article of the same name. The proposed name is of currently a disambiguation page, but the dab page has only this article and the other article Battle of Newtown. I recently added hatnotes on both articles, rendering the dab page useless. When the article first appeared on the Main Page, the Main Page mistakenly displayed "Battle of Newtown". However, that was quickly resolved as seen in this page, changing to "Battle of Newton". Edit: There are other cities and towns of Newton, like Newton, Massachusetts, but there is only one Battle of Newton. If you want to keep "Alabama", how about Battle of Newton, Alabama? George Ho (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NamesNames (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURAL, the clear primary topic of the plural term "Names" is the singular, Name. There are, of course, many names in many cultures, and they are often discussed in the plural - in fact, the word "names" is used in the article Name over 40 times to discuss the subject of that article. Turning to the five purportedly ambiguous topics on this page, two of them include in their names the definite article "The"; the third has the word "Hill" as part of its name; the fourth has the phrase "The infernal" as part of its name; and the last has no article at all, and nothing in the article You Are Free indicates that it is particularly important even in the context of this relatively obscure album. In short, not only is there no other topic with a realistic claim to primacy over this title; there is no other topic with a real claim to the title itself. bd2412 T 01:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 18, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss) ColiseumOakland Coliseum – Per WP:COMMONNAME and the preponderance of the Five Virtues for a title listed at WP:AT. First of all, let's recap what the old brickyard has been formally named offically: *Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (1966–1998) *Network Associates Coliseum (1998–2004) *McAfee Coliseum (2004–2008) *Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum (2008–2011) * Coliseum (2011) * Coliseum (2011-2014) Going forward, who knows? There's no reason to assume that there won't be more "names" to come before the old girl breathes her last.  ;The Five Virtues The Five Virtues are of article titles given at WP:AT are: #Recognizability (The title is a name or description of the subject that someone failiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize) #Naturalness (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English) #Precision (The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects) #Conciseness (The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects), and #Consistency (The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles) Certainly "Oakland Coliseum" is far more recognizable and more natural. As to precision "Oakland Coliseum" it is far more precise, considering that the article is about the entity over the course of its existence generally (1966-present) rather than specifically to its nature, history, or configuration in the period 2011-present. Not sure about consistency with other titles. As to concision, it is true that "" is fewer letters than "Oakland", but probably not fewer words (it might be or it might be more, depending on if you count "" as one word, more than one word, or not a word at all). It is probably more syllables ("Oh dot coh col ah see um" vs. "Oke land col ah see um") depending on if one pronounces the dot. If concision is valorized in order to make the title easier to read, "" with a punctuation mark in the middle of a word (or a dot instead of a space between two words, or whatever they are doing there) certainly fails badly there. So trying be fair (and IMO extremely generous to ""), let's call that one a draw. So that's 3-0-1 of the Five Virtues in favor of the move (I'm not counting Consistency since I don't know the facts, but even if "" is more consistent that's still 3-1-1 favoring the move.) The Five Virtues are really important, WP:AT is a policy and an venerable and important one.  ;But what about sources? But wait. WP:AT also says "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources". Generally. Let's talk about this. I'm going to assume that preponderance of sources, at least since 2011, use "" to denote the stadium; I'm not going to check this because it must be true or the article would never have been given this name and we wouldn't be having this conversation. So OK, moving forward. Three things about that. First, I looked into this in detail a while back for another matter, and what I found was that WP:AT says that because a title which is used by the great preponderance of reliable sources will also almost always best embody most of the Five Virtues. Of course it will. It would be quite unusual for a name to be used by a great preponderance of reliable sources in English but have the great preponderance of readers not recognize it and expect something different. Almost always. But not always, it appears, and that sentence did not consider what happens when corporate marketeers getting their mitts on the rights to jerk around with the name of large and long-lived civic gathering places and so forth. Second, to the extent that the preponderance of reliable sources uses "", some of those are captive sources. The broadcasters must refer in their broadcasts to " Coliseum" by contract (I assume, and contract or no they're surely be fired if they refuse to). The newspapers can't be legally required to, but they have a strong incentive to not put themselves in a position where they are are odds with the the stadium operators (Anschutz Entertainment Group) and owners (the City of Oakland and Almeda County); if complains to the city and the city talks to AEG and your reporter is not welcome in the locker room that's a problem and there's no reason for a publisher to make that problem for itself. From there a likely trickle-down mindless-copycatting effect may be in play. None of this has anything to do with what the preponderance of actual people actually call this entity. Third, no sources refer to this entity as "" before 2011. For the great majority of its life another name was used (and likely will be in future, when gets tired of this nonsense). It's silly to say "Well, here are three good refs from 2011-2014 that use "" as the name, and 27 good refs from 1966-2011 that use another name (mostly Oakland Coliseum or some variant), so let's ignore the 27 and go with the three".  ;Miscellaneous issues It has been called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum more times than any other name (twice). It has been called called Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum for a longer time than any other name. It is probably well past the halfway point of its existence, and when it is finally torn down and referred to only in the past tense, it will almost certainly be referred to as either "Oakland Coliseum" or "Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum" generally, except in the probably relatively rare instances when a specific reference to McAfee Coliseum and so forth is called for. Yeah sure we can change the name after it's torn down, but in the meantime, considering our mirrors and many incoming links and references from outside, we are leaving a trail of redirect and double-redirect garbage for future readers to sort through. This is not a service to the reader or to history. It is not encyclopedic, in other words. And... what happens when PepsiCo is running a promotion and renames Pepsi Stadium to New Raspberry Diet Pepsi Stadium just for the month of August 2018? What happens when a movie studio gets naming rights and changes the name to its latest release every month? What happens when a stadium is named Pop!WOW Software Park for baseball games and Kompressor Infrastructure Stadium for football games? What happens when it is given a non-descriptive name such as "Pop!WOW FunCloud". What happens if a stadium is named "Governor Joe Smith Eats Kittens Alive Stadium"? OK, little far out, but if we feel we have to dance like puppets to what somebody has paid to be the "official" name regardless of what people actually call it or how the reader is best served, same principle would apply. If all this is still not convincing, another way to approach this would be to say that the entity has no name, really. A "name" is a label, a pronounceable word or group of sounds, which: *Is attached an entity through its existence (and beyond). *Provides a stable label for people to refer to the entity in both past, present, and future contexts. *Might be changed occasionally, but usually rarely, seldom, and not lightly. And it may be that this hunk of concrete and steel in Oakland no longer has one of those anymore, thanks to ridiculous shenanigans that the structure's owners have engaged in. However, if we accept that, I'm not sure what we should name the article -- "Large Sports Stadium in Oakland, California" or something, I suppose, and we can talk about that. Not great, but certainly better than the essentially worthless string " Coliseum". Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TumkurTumakuruGovernment of India on 17-Oct-2014 cleared renaming 12 cities and towns of the Karnataka state, eight years after receiving a proposal from Karnataka government, Tumkur as Tumakuru. varma (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ShimogaShivamoggaGovernment of India on 17-Oct-2014 cleared renaming 12 cities and towns of the Karnataka state, eight years after receiving a proposal from Karnataka government, Shimoga as Shivamogga. varma (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HospetHosapeteGovernment of India on 17-Oct-2014 cleared renaming 12 cities and towns of the Karnataka state, eight years after receiving a proposal from Karnataka government, Hospet as Hosapete. varma (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ChikmagalurChikkamagaluru – Govt. of India on 17-Oct-2014 cleared renaming 12 cities and towns of the Karnataka state, eight years after receiving a proposal from Karnataka government, Chikmagalur as Chikkamagaluru. varma (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Plus (Ed Sheeran album)+ (album)x wasn't moved, but this was - inconsistency. There's a better chance of someone thinking a plus sign is (in this case) pronounced "plus", than thinking a letter x (and it is a letter x, not a multiplication sign) is pronounced "multiply". Also, Maroon 5's latest album V is pronounced "five" - I'm guessing that someone who's not familiar with the album would think, without reading the article, that it was pronounced as the letter "v", so if that album can stay at "V", surely this can stay at "+". Unreal7 (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Benjamin ChurchBenjamin Church (physician) – I don't believe this Benjamin Church meets either of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Usage-wise, Church the doctor's page doesn't get more views than all the others combined, and in fact barely exceeds the second-most viewed page (Church the military officer) despite the advantage of having the primary topic position. (Over the past 90 days: Church the doctor, 5382 views; Church the officer, 5072 views; Church the carpenter, 525 views.) A check of Google Books looked to significantly favor Church the officer, as does the number of links from other articles (officer 122, doctor 22, carpenter 7). While Church the doctor has considerable long-term significance, Church the officer does as well, enough that Church the doctor doesn't have a clear claim to the primary topic under this criteria either. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Port Authority Trans-HudsonPATH (rapid transit) – The WP:COMMONNAME of the system is PATH, and as per Wikipedia policy, this should be the title of this article. The official website prominently displays “PATH” much more than its official name, and the same is true when people enter and use the system itself. “Port Authority Trans-Hudson” is found on the exterior of rolling stock, but rarely anywhere else in the system from my experience. Popular/media usage also tends to favor the acronym. As I do not believe this article is the (worldwide) primary usage of either PATH or Path, and I decline to argue that it is, I am proposing to use the disambiguator above as the most likely to follow conventions of other Wikipedia articles. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Tinlinkin (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fractional reserve bankingFractional-reserve banking – Move back over redirect to hyphenate the compound modifier for clarity per WP:HYPHEN. The article itself seems to consistently include the hyphen in practically all cases (all except in the last small section at the end of the article). Note, however, that there was a prior move on 09:59, 15 September 2011‎ in the opposite direction (which may have been an undiscussed move, as I have not found an archived discussion about it). At the time, the mover (Lawrencekhoo) said "Unhyphenated term is much more common than hyphenated term". I am open to the other possibility, but the current mismatch between the title and the content of the article seems like a problem and the hyphenated use seems more like clear, readable English. Hyphenation would also be consistent with the hyphenation of Full-reserve banking. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC) BarrelProof (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)EarthBound (series)Mother series – As alluded above, after rewriting the articles for each game of this series (no small task), I'm reporting back that the common name for the series, as used in the project's reliable sources, is "the Mother series" and not "the EarthBound series". I tried to mark each time I saw either usage (some examples below), but the best measure is a simple search of the project's custom Google search:  :"mother series" -"how i met": 88k hits  :"earthbound series": 7.6k The former is used more often by an order of magnitude (and that's even considering the citogenesis of WP having used the latter for years, e.g., I found that IGN used "Mother series" most often, primarily before 2008). I'll also note that most Western Wikipedias also use the former, and that some sites use both in the same article ([23][24]). Otherwise, it's mostly Mother: [25][26][27][28]. There's no question that EarthBound is the most popular game of the series outside of Japan (the only series game officially released outside of Japan) and that its Western cult interest is much more about this game than its predecessor or sequel (and under the title EarthBound, not Mother 2). This said, the North American title is not used when referring to the series, where our reliable sources prefer "Mother series"—the series that refers to Mothers one through three. As for the parentheses, I don't think "series" is used as a qualifier but as part of the title (it's known as "Mother series" and not "Mother, the series"). More on this, though, at WT:VG. Anyway, I'd like to have this addressed before I start on the final jewel in the topic group. Thoughts? czar  01:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Military order (society)Military orders – The primary usage of the plural form is the medieval monastic orders of knights, as Google Web, Scholar and Books search will show. The singular form does not have a primary usage, because there are many honours known named "Military Order of ..." and there are many references to this or that order from a military officer. There is very little written about military orders (in the latter sense) in general, and so the plural of the common noun does not compete with the medieval orders for primacy. Also, the medieval orders are limited in number: the military orders can be precisely enumerated. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BridgesBridges (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT. I see nothing on this page to dissuade me from thinking that the clear primary topic of the term is the singular, which is by far the most important topic historically, and which the pop culture topics intend to evoke where they use that title. bd2412 T 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jeong Eun-jiJung Eun-ji – Jung Eun-ji is the WP:COMMONNAME for the artist. A google news search for Jung Eun-ji shows 679 results while a search for Jeong Eun-ji shows 10 results, of which are actually for Jung Eun-ji. A Naver dictionary search for Jung Eun-ji shows her Korean name as the result while Jeong Eun-ji does not. While Jeong Eun-ji appears to be the name used by her entertainment company, it is not deemed her 'official' English name and is decidedly less used than Jung Eun-ji. KJ Discuss? 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Carbon (fiber)Carbon fiber – The article uses "carbon fiber" throughout. Because this isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. – Srnec (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^