Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen.
Click here to purge this page

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

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

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle, if you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you can not revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]


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

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

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

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

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting the revert of the undiscussed move of the article from "United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic" to "MINUSCA". The new name utterly fails the Wikipedia article-naming policy. Thanks. (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting potentially controversial moves[edit]


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

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

Requesting a single page move[edit]

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

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 22 December 2014". Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. The template must be substituted.

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

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations 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).

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

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

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


Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given. When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions.

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

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion. One option is to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussions[edit]

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

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

December 22, 2014[edit]

December 21, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Adam BirchJoey Mercury – As noted in previous discussions, Birch's performances as "Joey Mercury" in the mid-2000s had considerably higher exposure than his 2000-2001 appearances as "Joey Matthews" with ECW. He is now once again performing regularly on WWE television as "Joey Mercury", increasing his exposure under this name. A Google News Archive search returns 93 hits for "Joey Matthews" wrestling and 626 hits for "Joey Mercury" wrestling. McPhail (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Russians in Canada → ? – Russians in Canada" implies that these are Russian citizens living in Canada, which in many instances is simply not the case. Many have never lived in Russia nor hold Russian citizenship, it also implies that these are in some way "foreigners" in Canada, as they are not classified as Canadians. Instead, these are more appropriately referred to Canadians of Russian descent (or Russian Canadians) per WP: PRECISION. 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mandarin ChineseMandarin language – The term "Mandarin Chinese" is seldom heard. "Mandarin" is more often used. Additionally, "Chinese" has a lot of meanings (political, demonym, linguistic, ethnic, etc.); the use of "language" would be more precise and appropriate for this page according to WP:PRECISION and WP:NCL ("Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language""). It also makes the naming more consistent with other articles on languages, such as English language or Thai language. The current "Mandarin language" page is an empty one that is redirected to "Mandarin Chinese". I propose to exchange the names of these two pages. Lysimachi (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

December 20, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Vilyam Genrikhovich FisherRudolf Abel – Wikipedia should use the most WP:COMMONNAME for the title. Even the article itself says that the person is "better known by the alias Rudolf Ivanovich Abel". Google Books search returns 49 results for "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" [1], 36 for "Vilyam Fisher" [2] and 11,700 hits for "Rudolf Abel" [3]. Similar situation is with Google News: 223 hits for "Rudolf Abel" [4], 35 for "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" [5], and 26 for "Vilyam Fisher" [6]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Joshua BonehillJoshua Bonehill-Paine – Seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in a majority of secondary sources, from those used in the article: the Daily Mail, the BBC and Jewish Chronicle all use "Bonehill-Paine" exclusively; the Western Gazette uses "Bonehill-Paine" in four articles and "Bonehill" in one; the Independent uses both names, one in each article; The Tab is the only site to solely use "Bonehill". --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC) McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Charlotte (disambiguation)CharlotteCharlotte currently redirects to Charlotte, North Carolina. There has been a bit of a discussion in 2008 and 2013 at Talk:Charlotte. I agree with Infovarius, that the city is hardly known to most non Americans and the given name would be the most likely subject which these users would expect to find. As virtually all American cities already have the format City, State it seems logical to turn Charlotte into a disambiguation page. Inwind (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Coalition of the Radical LeftSYRIZA – As @Picapica: already stated two years ago, the party is now referred to as "SYRIZA" by media nearly worldwide. Noone talks or writes about the "Coalition of the Radical Left". Plus: now that SYRIZA has become a (more or less) unitary party, it isn't even a coalition anymore, so the full name isn't descriptive anymore either. PanchoS (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Horn (instrument)French horn – The French horn is not the only musical instrument called the horn, therefore the disambiguator "(instrument)" does not adequately disambiguate. In many circles, the English horn or alto horn is the musical instrument that is simply called "the horn". Orchestras and concert bands call the French horn simply "the horn", but British brass bands use the word "horn" by itself to refer exclusively to the alto horn, as do Salvation Army brass bands around the world (the baritone horn is simply referred to as the "baritone"). The International Horn Society is biased towards giving the French horn precedence and exclusively calling this instrument "the horn" because their society is devoted to this instrument. "French horn" is the title that most of our users are going to expect for this article. We would support inclusivity and user expectations by moving this article to "French horn" and by redirecting the title "Horn (instrument)" to the Horn disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kid vs. KatKid vs Kat – As can be seen in the logo, "versus" is abbreviated as "vs" not "vs." there is no dot after the lowercase S. Ranze (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ford ClassicFord Consul Classic – The Ford Classic nameplate is ambiguous; right now, an Indian saloon version of the Fiesta is sold under this nameplate (which is currently mentioned in this article, but is a totally unrelated car and thus would not be a disaster to remove any text about). This car is also actually known as the Consul Classic, with "Classic" simply being shorthand. This can be shown best by looking at the owner's club, where they describe the cars as "Ford Consul Classic & Consul Capri", whilst their name is "Ford Classic & Capri Owners Club". Searching on Google for "Ford Classic" produces very few immediate results for this car, whilst Consul Classic immediately gives you a whole bunch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Islamic terrorismIslamist terrorism – Most Muslims wouldn't want to be associated with it so WP:AT, with text "..The title indicates what the article is about..", applies. In the article Islamic terrorism#Ideology clearly presents Islamists as the faction behind terrorist attacks. The following section, Islamic terrorism#Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology, then demonstrates a high level of disapproval of Islamic/Islamist terrorist attacks among Muslims. WP:LABEL (also accessed by WP:TERRORIST) speaks of value laden labels yet, in this situation, it can be argued that Islamic is a more value laden label even than terrorist. Many Muslims roundly condemn terrorist action. Searches indicate about half the level of hits for "Islamist terrorism" and "Islamist terrorist" in comparison to searches on "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic terrorist". The Islamist terms have a far more specific meaning on a subject that is not representative of Islam. I am not sure whether sources have really thought things through with regard to their usage. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Java ServletJava servlet – The upper case form is rarely used to refer to the concept of a Java servlet. The upper case form is almost always used when referring to the Java class. This article is about the concept of a Java servlet (e.g.[10]) and only tangentially about the Java class. Here are the Google Ngram results showing the overwhelming prevalence in book literature of the lower case form over the upper case form. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 22:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Jojalozzo 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DWRT-FM99.5 Play FM – Per WP:NC, one of the characteristics of a good article title is recognizability. So to comply with the policy mentioned, we should use the station name—which is more recognizable than its call sign—to name this article. —theenjay36 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Š-L-MS-L-M – The use in Arabic and East Semitic languages outweighs other usages. In any case, use of the S in Hebrew relates to the use of a letter form, ש, which if, in modern times, is given a diacritic dot in to the top right of the letter, will be pronounced "Sh" but if it is given a diacritic dot to the top left, will be pronounced "S". Nikud, diactitic type marks were only relatively recently added to texts and it is hard to say how things would have been pronounced in earlier times. Arabic has Salaam while Hebrew has Shalom. Arabic has Islam while Hebrew has Jerusalem (which in Hebrew is pronounced Yerushalayim). Yes, Islam has a verbal link to peace. I see no reason why this connection cannot be fairly presented.
    Now, as an abuse of talk page access, I'd like to share one of my favourite songs, sung by Iraqi-Israeli performer Mosh Ben Ari, then of the band Sheva, The song with its repeated but hopeful point is the wonderful Salaam, translation as in the Wikipedia article here. It chokes me every time Face-smile.svg. GregKaye 07:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Bluestein's FFT algorithmChirp Z-transform – This article confuses me. In the same sense that the FFT is a particular implementation of the DFT, it would seem that the CZT is a general transform that can be implemented in different ways, and the Bluestein algorithm is a particular implementation (and there's probably a slow, direct implementation?) The CZT computes samples in spirals around the Z plane, and the DFT and "zoom-FFT" are special cases of the CZT that you get when setting the parameters so that it only loops around the unit circle. I think the article should be about the chirp-Z transform, and the Bluestein algorithm should be a section in that article. If it was originally formulated as an DFT algorithm, and the more general Chirp-Z was invented later, that should be mentioned, but the article should be about the transform, not the history. (And it should have a picture of the spiral samples.) — Omegatron (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)PalpatineEmperor (Star Wars) – As per WP:UCN, I hereby suggest we move this article from the relatively-obscure “Palaptine” to the far more recognizable “Emperor (Star Wars)”. Outside of Star Wars fans, I don’t think the name Palpatine is particularly recognizable, whereas I think most people would know who you’re talking about if you mentioned the Emperor from Star Wars. For the record, I get 834,000 Google results for when I enter Palpatine, but I got 1,970,000 Google results when I entered Emperor “Star Wars”. (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Episcopal Diocese of MinnesotaEpiscopal Church in Minnesota – According to the comments here, made by someone who says they are an officer of the body in question, the name used internally and in official communications by the diocese is "Episcopal Church in Minnesota." As I can see no reason not to use the official name, which has no obvious ambiguity or other problems that I can think of, I suggest moving the article to the title the body currently uses and leaving the other name as a redirect. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TVGNPop Network – TVGN will rebranded as Pop Network in January 14, 2015, and CBS Corporation will not carry the network as part of TV Guide. (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Welsh NationalWelsh Grand National – historically this race was titled the Welsh Grand National, it was changed to Welsh National at some point but has reverted to its original name from the 2013 running - see [11], [12] and [13]. A redirect exists from Welsh Grand National to the current title. I propose the article be moved to Welsh Grand National, with a redirect from Welsh National Bcp67 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15, 2014[edit]

  • (Discuss)Tumor Treating FieldsAlternating electric field therapy (oncology) – I've been reviewing a number of sources in preparation for an update to this page, and I've noticed that many independent english-language clinical review / guideline organizations (e.g. NCCN and UpToDate) seem to prefer the term "alternating electric field therapy" to refer to this technology in a generic sense. The term "tumor treating fields" was coined by Novocare researchers, and "NovoTTF" is the original, trademarked name for their device. It's not clear to me whether other companies that might produce devices in the future working on similar principles would be legally able to call them "tumor treating fields". "Tumor treating fields" is also a bit suboptimal from the standpoint of WP:POVTITLE, since it implies that the technology is efficacious in "treating tumors", while there is still substantial controversy among experts on this point. Finally, I think using a name that refers to the overall therapy, rather than intangible "fields" will lead to less awkward writing (such as the unwieldy first sentence "Tumor Treating Fields (sometimes abbreviated as TTF) is a neologism used to describe a type of electromagnetic field therapy using low-intensity electrical fields. --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC) RustavoTalk/Contribs 23:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Keating ModelKeating model – MOS says that the names of models, hypotheses, theories, and laws, etc, are not normally capped. Downcasing will accord with the vast majority of such cases. Tony (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)YidamYidam – This article was previously moved from it's original title "Yidam" to "Iṣṭadevatā (Buddhism)" on grounds of consistency with other related articles which have titles derived from Sanskrit - however, as I have outlined on the article's talk page here, the Hindu term Iṣṭadevatā is not actually used in Buddhism and found nowhere in Sanskrit or Tibetan Buddhist texts (it does occur in some outdated western books which conflate Buddhist tantra with Hinduism). The terms "Yidam" or "meditation diety" are now most commonly used in reliable English language books on Buddhism - so I am requesting a move back to the original title: Yidam. for accuracy and per WP:COMMONNAME Chris Fynn (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the LevantIntervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – 1. Per Wikipedia:PRECISE. You lose nothing by taking out the words "2014 military 2. 2014 is not needed. It would make no sense to subdivide this page by year as time goes on(i.e. 2015 intervention...). Moreover, the article talks about subjects that predate 2014. For example, the United States Arming the Free Syrian Army. 3. There is no reason for the word "military". The article itself is not currently confined to simply military intervention. See the section on Humanitarian intervention. Second, all these states are using other types of intervention (Diplomatic, Economic, informational) against ISIL. The article should also cover those aspects. Casprings (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)BashkimiBashkimi (newspaper) – Bashkimi (Albanian for unity, union) is a very common word used in Albanian organization, patriotic clubs, sport clubs, periodic press, etc. Some of them belong to the period of Albanian National Awakening and are of much higher importance than this newspaper. A disambiguation page with a list of all these organizations might be a better choice than the communist-period newspaper Mondiad (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Long-period variableLong-period variable starWP:TITLE says we prefer nouns as title; this title is an adjective that in sources is almost always atteched to "star", except when it is being used as inside jargon for the category of such stars. The cited sources include stars as the noun explicitly, or implicitly at "Long‐Period Variables". The scholar search linked in the previous RM shows "star" included almost always. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Video game genresList of video game genres – The article in its current state is literally a list of genres. The title is even plural, whereas WP:PLURAL is against this and film genre and music genre aren't. More importantly, this article is not encyclopedic. Film genre is a relatively short article, but it discusses the categorization and definition of genres. The article attempts to explain what a genre is in film and how they are used. It does not list the genres themselves. I suggest this article be moved entirely while a new article called Video game genre is made. The lead section of this article could be used well for the new article, as a start. I'd love to help with the change and with improving the new Video game genre-article, but I'd like to know if people support this, seeing as it is currently a top-priority article and apparently B-class. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 19:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC) ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Raymond Chan Chi-chuenRay Chan – I'm surprise I was not made aware of the previous move, even though I created this page. It all seems like someone is trying quietly make all these moves to this non-existing HK convention as that IP stalker is saying without notifying anyone. There's no standard for Hong Kong names nor there is a convention on Wikipedia, so we follow the Chinese convention or English convention. If you got a Hong Kong convention, show it to me. Raymond is an English name, therefore follows the English convention with only First and Last name in the title, in this case Raymond Chan or Ray Chan. If he's more notable by his Chinese name, then rename the title to Chan Chi-chuen TheAvatar (discuss?) 17:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Second Armistice at CompiègneArmistice of 22 June 1940 – I am proposing this because the current title is basically a Wikipedian neologism. The proposed title is relatively common in the literature (and in French), but it has a drawback. The armistice did not come into effect until shortly after midnight on 25 June. Another alternative would be Franco-German armistice (1940), or without parentheses ("of 1940"). There was an earlier Franco-German armistice in 1871. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 17:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of lists of listsWikipedia:List of lists of listsMove to WP namespace is the core of my proposal. This article has no encyclopedic meaning. It only gathers other articles (lists) for their structure, not by their content. Already these pages are listed in Category:Lists of lists, and nothing more is to be said about them indeed in mainspace. (Note: it might be reasonable to move this into a Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists subpage. That is fine, as long as that sub-discussion does not prevent this primal move out of article space. The same can be said about any pagename (from "LoLoL") change). DePiep (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Baila esta cumbiaBaila Esta Cumbia – Last month, a move request was made for this article to be moved to "Baila Esta Cumbia" because that's how it is written on most English-language reliable sources. However it was opposed by several users who insisted that its native capitalization be used. The article was moved to "Baila esta cumbia" in 2012 by a user who has not heavily contributed to this article. The debate whether Latin foreign-language should use its native capitalization or not has often been brought up and in most cases, the usage of capitalization found on English-language reliable sources has been favored. Per last move request, I brought this up at the talk page for WP:NCCAPS, but the discussion has stalled. Usually, the guidelines at WP:CAPM used in favor of Latin foreign-language works of art to use its native capitalization and sometimes WP:ALBUMCAPS. These two projects prefer using native capitalization for foreign-language works of art. The Latin music project, however, is not of them. Several weeks ago, the active members of the project voted unanimously to utilize capitalization of Spanish- and Portuguese-language recordings found on reliable English-language sources. The active members of the project have always favored this method as opposed to following native capitalization of the other languages. Going back to NCCAPS, proponents of native capitalization point out the guideline about French expression being untranslated because its a borrowed loan word. However, it also states that "If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English-language reliable sources is recommended". Reliable sources such as Allmusic, the Los Angeles Times, the Sun-Sentinel, and Billboard Books, this encyclopedia has the song written as "Baila Esta Cumbia" not "Baila esta cumbia". Besides it makes no sense for this song to be forced to use its native capitalization when the other songs such Enamorada de Ti (song) and No Quiero Saber (a GA) from its parent albums aren't using them. So it would confusing from a reader's point of view. This is not a classical composition, this is a popular Latin song that was recorded in the US so for this article to be forced to use its native capitalization is nonsense. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 21:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Erick (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lau Kong-wahRay Lau Kong-wah – Or Ray Lau (currently a disambiguation page a redirect to this article)? Current title and his English name are commonly used, according to Bing News search. I prefer HK-style naming or "Ray". George Ho (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Salafi movementSalafism – The name for this page must be Salafism from Arabic Salafiyya. That's an exact translation from Arabic. The article itself mentions the name Salafism several times. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)  – Islamic11111 (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Energy systemsEnergy system (biology) – This was discussed several years ago, but never acted on. The term is highly ambiguous, with any number of possible meanings, including the general concept of public utility systems that provide energy to consumers, or systems within an appliance or other piece of technology that control its energy use. I happened to find this page while trying to link the term in a quote about energy systems for urban planning areas. bd2412 T 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Penn State child sex abuse scandalJerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal – This has been a frequent suggestion over the years, so for some, it is likely natural to discount another request. However, after two years since the last discussion, it appears to me that my suggested title is a better one than our current title. Although there is definitely unreliability in Google search hit numbers, they are worth examining. A search for "Penn State child sex abuse scandal" [had link, but it is on blacklist for some reason] yields about 19,400 results, whereas a search for "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" [again, had link, but blocked] yields nearly 50,000 results. Moreover, recent articles favor "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal": Centre Daily Times Allentown Morning Call FOX Sports Big Ten Blog NBC Philadelphia CBS News, while I found few-to-no articles published in 2014 that used the old title. Moreover, even sites that have a repository of articles on the subject, while the repository may include Penn State, the articles (created more recently than the repository), refer to it as the Sandusky scandal rather than the Penn State scandal, indicating a gradual, recent shift (examples: NBC Philadelphia and CBS News). Overall, there seems to have been a shift both from local and national media. According to WP:POVTITLE, in order to use a title that does not reflect a neutral point of view, it must be the predominant title used in the media, which as demonstrated, it is not (admittedly, it is one of the titles used in the media, but no longer the primary one). Consequently, I believe the title "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal" not only more accurately reflects the facts of the case (insofar as only Sandusky has been convicted of anything, while Penn State officials remain in pre-trial limbo and much of the NCAA and Freeh Report's findings have been criticized/refuted, thus at least partially exonerating Penn State), but is now the predominant title used by reliable sources, and thus should be the title of Wikipedia's article according to our naming conventions. Thank you. Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John BarnardJohn Barnard (motorsport) – With the intention of replacing the present John Barnard as a disambiguation page. I raise the issue once again since it appears the situation has changed since 2010 when the last discussion was held. There are now 11 John Barnards with articles in WP, and the other 10 receive between them about as many hits per day as this John Barnard - so the question of an overwhelming preponderance of hits, which was an issue last time round, no longer arises. As there seemed to be some consensus on John Barnard (motorsport) last time round I submit it herewith, as it meets with the 'precision' requirement of article title policy. Smerus (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Austrian Federal GovernmentCabinet of Austria – The article doesn't describe the Austrian federal government as a whole, it describes the Bundesregierung, i.e. the cabinet. The intro explicitly says it's a cabinet that's the subject of the article. The page lists itself under "Executive" in the infobox, is in the National cabinets category, and uses the National cabinets of Europe navigation template. Every other article in the template is named Cabinet of XXX. Comprehensive articles on the other branches of the Austrian federal government and their constitutional frameworks do exist. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 01:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)  – Damvile (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


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