Wikipedia:Requested moves

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 the article titling policy and the 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; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
• Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
• A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
• A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
• Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

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

• Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, be bold and do it yourself! If you can't, see § Requesting technical moves.
• Renaming a category – propose the move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
• Renaming a stub template – propose the move at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.
• Renaming an image or other file – see Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving a file page.
• Moves from draft namespace or user space to article space – Unconfirmed users: add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Confirmed users: Move the page yourself.
• Merging two articles – make a request at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or be bold and do it yourself.
• Splitting an article – make a request at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits, or be bold and do it yourself.
• Requesting that page histories be merged – list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
• Contesting a move request close – use the Wikipedia:Move review process.

Undiscussed moves

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

• No article exists at the new target title;
• There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
• It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot 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 controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Uncontroversial proposals

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:Template:WP:RM2|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required.

If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

Incomplete and contested proposals

• Union of Kraków and Vilna → Union of Vilnius (1499) —(Discuss)— Current title is not present in English sources and reader could face difficulty searching and recognize it. New title used in English academic works, shorter and less confusing —M.K. (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC), M.K. (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Solomon → King Solomon — King Solomon is the standard attribution when discussing this person. —Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Controversial. It may pass; I may support it; but it involves the whole question of WP:NCNT. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • i'm ot following the "controversy". the wikilink you give says what i thought when i posted at the 'uncontroversial' section, i.e. "use the most common form of the name used in English". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Jaakobou. "Solomon" is too ambiguous, since this is a common surname and given name, except when used with a stock phrase like "Song of Solomon". However, Solomon of Israel would appear to be the proper article name per the conventions on naming royalty articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not; Solomon of Israel is not English usage, it is arguable as biblical scholarship, and the Name of Kingdom format is recommended only for European rulers because they use the same namestock. (I would not argue its application to Moslem rulers on the same grounds, but not here.) This Solomon is the primary usage of Solomon. (But all this demonstrates that the question is controversial; let's have a WP:RM request in normal form, where all these details can be discussed.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

just to make things clear - which version is your preferred one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Solomon; it is possible that arguments for King Solomon might persuade me, but I'd have to see them. Others will oppose on the grounds that King is basically redundant, and will provoke requests for its addition where it is entirely redundant, such as Edward II of England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• User:RHB/NHS → National Health Service, major editing work done in userspace as part of the core contest, and history merge required. No response to comments placed on article talk page about moving. Essentially this is overwriting/merging the mainspace copy for the copy in my userspace. RHB - Talk 17:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• H.S. Dillon → H. S. Dillon — Naming conventions —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• K.N. Singh → K. N. Singh — Naming conventions —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• M.J. Hyland → M. J. Hyland — Naming conventions —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• S.L.A. Marshall → S. L. A. Marshall — Naming conventions —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The portion of the convention covering this is disputed -- page moves invoking the guideline should not be considered uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversial? There hasn't been any discussion there for two weeks and one of the two editors disputing it dropped out of the discussion days prior to that. There is no serious opposition to this standard, and it's used on literally 99% of the articles to which it would apply. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it is controversial, and has been for a long time; temporary relaxing of debate on the matter is not a sign that consensus has been reached, as the matter has also been raised at WT:MOS and other places. It simply needs to be centralized, probably with an RfC. The nature of the controversy, for those unaware of it, is that the spaced usage is widely considered archaic and conflicts with most modern style guides, and also inconsistent with the MOS's treatment of abbreviations and acronyms more generally. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Widely considered?" "Most modern style guides?" I'd be interested in how you arrived at this information. I'll post an RfC if you'd like. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Done There you have it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I remove my objection to this move, on the basis that until the matter is resolved at WT:NC (or more broadly at WP:MOS, which would be more proper) it is better for the article names to be consistent one way or the other, and the nominator of the moves says these are the only extant unspaced examples he can find (in article names; there are probably tens of thousands of cases in article prose, which is why WP:NC is being disputed on this point - it does not in fact appear to represent consensus, even if bored editors have gone around ensure that article titles conform). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bloody 27 (film) → Bloody 27 — Nickname for a highway is not significant; film-in-making will be more reputable, and there can be a disambiguation link to the highway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• How notable is the film likely to be? If the road lives up to its nickname, it will be notable to people who live near it or travel along it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with Anthony A.; there is no compelling reason to not disambiguate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Border Showdown → Border War —(Discuss)— Border War is the name in overwhelming popular use. More importantly, the naming scheme of this series and the Red River Shootout needs to match. Both have traditional names still in overwhelming popular use, and newer PC names adopted recently, but rarely used. —Xyzzyva (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Incomplete, and "Border War" refers to many things, including other sports rivalries, so this certainly shouldn't go to the proposed target. Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Concur with Dekimasu. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps → Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) - Link talk page to original article that was recently moved. -- Cmjc80 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like the article on both teams was split into two articles and that the plain title was turned into a disambiguation page. Considering that the talk page deals with topics related to both articles from when they were together at the plain title, and both articles are now linked from the dab page, it would seem fine to just start a new talk page for the USL article. I don't think anything needs to be done here. Dekimasuよ! 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's also not terribly difficult to simply refactor talk material from one to the other; I did this with Albinism and Albinism in popular culture (the latter a merger of two other pages and the IPC section in the former). Takes some time, but not difficult. (The only down side is that the page history will be forked, but that's rarely an issue with talk pages.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• 8 Mile (Soundtrack) → Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture 8 Mile - Link talk page to original article that was recently moved. -- Udonknome (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture 8 Mile is the official name of the 4x Platinum album by Eminem. Just because it's uncommon to be refered by such a long name, it's still not a good reason to deprive the album of it's official name.

• As long as people can find it by redirects/DAB, that sounds reasonable. The current location is misnamed anyway ("soundtrack" shouldn't be capitalized). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Other proposals

• The Liberator (United States magazine) → The Liberator (magazine) —(Discuss)— "United States magazine" seems rather excessive to me. I understand that there is a UK magazine by the name, Liberator, but wouldn't it be incorrect to address The Liberator as Liberator (and visa versa)? —Mirlen 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 17, 2007

• Fall (disambiguation) → Fall —(Discuss)— Most common usage disputed. Fall currently redirects to Autumn. —Simply south (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Totient function/Proofs → Proofs involving the Totient function —(Discuss)— Per Wikipedia:Subpages, this article should be named Proofs involving the Totient function, not Totient function/Proofs. I'd do the move myself, but this just hit Slashdot, so I'll just err to the side of caution here. —Phirazo 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC) --Phirazo 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Smee (Peter Pan character) → Smee —(Discuss)— Disambiguation page not needed. —JasonAQuest (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC) - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dniester → Nistru —(Discuss) Google hits almost double. Suchwings1 (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

December 16, 2007

• Boolean logic in computer science → Boolean logic —(Discuss)— the most common name of a thing that does not conflict with the names of other things —Ra2007 (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fungus → Fungi —(Discuss)— The plural rather than singular form should be used as the article title. —-- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision → Air Kazakhstan Flight 1907 —(Discuss)— Since the ATC orders r imperative and can only be superseded by clear evidence, that they are wrong, we can stick to the common naming policy (deviating plane gives the name...). —Homer Landskirty (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Second Skin Single → ? —(Discuss)— Proposed by an anonymous user, listed here for discussion —Lox (t,c) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• James D. Watson → James Watson —(Discuss)— Should be non-controversial: Although the JDW name identifies him clearly, it violates WP:UCN since it is very seldom used. Move should be to the JW name, since his competitors for that title are all significantly less notable. Numbers appear at Discuss-lk's target. —Jerzy•t 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  

• Nazi Germany → Third Reich —(Discuss)— {{{3}}} —EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

December 15, 2007

• Ta-Hia → Daxia —(Discuss)

I feel strongly that the Ta-Hia page should be moved to Daxia and appropriate adjustments made throughout the article (which I am happy to do - if you wish), for the following reasons: Daxia is the proper spelling according to the Pinyin system of romanising Chinese - the system used by far more people today than any other - including just about everyone in mainland China and people studying Chinese today. It has also become the standard for articles in the Wikipedia (often with the Wade-Giles version included as an alternative). Ta-hsia is the name according to the Wade-Giles system which is an old English system still in use in Taiwan and by older Western scholars, while Ta-hia is from the French E.F.E.O. system and, therefore, not appropriate at all in an English-language article (and even in that system "Ta-Hia" is incorrect). A link to the Daxia River can be inserted at the top of the page. By the way - this article used to be listed under Daxia - but was moved to its present position under the old French name. Also note the present Talk page is still headed with Daxia (Talk:Ta-hsia) - as it was before the move. John Hill (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Those interested will find a couple of more recent notes on the Talk page. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Proposal to move templates -- The templates Template:WP:RM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and {{lt:WP:RMtalk}}, used as part of the process to list other pages here, do not work properly due to software updates, and should be moved to the locations of the redirects which are currently being used as stand-ins. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Template:WP:RMtalk → Template:RMtalk
  • Template:WP:RM → Template:RMlink

• Talk:Nihontō#Requested move -- The article currently titled Nihontō extensively details the history of the primary types of Japanese swords. The word nihontō (日本刀) literally translates to "Japanese sword", and is more or less unknown in English. As such, the article should be moved to Japanese sword per WP:Use English (and Japanese sword should be moved to Japanese sword (disambiguation)). Bradford44 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nihontō → Japanese sword
  • Japanese sword → Japanese sword (disambiguation)

• NRO → NRO (disambiguation) —(Discuss)— The US National Reconnaissance Office is by far the most common usage of the term NRO. Therefore, NRO should be moved, and the page NRO redirected to the National Reconnaissance Office article, linking back to NRO (disambiguation) by means of the {{dablink}} template. —GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars → ? —(Discuss)— This is no longer a list of locations. —Taric25 (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• John Spencer (Rugby Union) → John Spencer (rugby player) —(Discuss)— both articles refer to the same player. The first has more info but the second follows a more common article title format and has more links —Bcp67 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

December 14, 2007

• Padan Plain → Po valley —(Discuss)— More common and intelligible name, and Padan is a misspelling of Padane. —Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• China Standard Time → Beijing Time —(Discuss)— The term is always "北京时间" (Beijing Time) in Chinese, the usage "China Standard Time" does not exist in Chinese, it is likely a misnomer use by people trying to imitate American time zone names. —Voidvector (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Annamalai Hill → Arunachala —(Discuss)— I am trying to propose moving Annamalai Hill to Arunachala given that Arunachala is used in the hindu texts and has many more google hits. ( like 90,000 to 303!) Sethie (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• WPBA-TV → WPBA —(Discuss)— WPBA's callsign does not have a -TV suffix —New World Man (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Needs discussion section set up and I do oppose the move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic → Kirghiz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic —(Discuss)— see Kyrgyz SSR below. —Soman (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kyrgyz SSR → Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic —(Discuss)— 'Kirghiz' was the name used during the Soviet period, 'Kyrgyz' is the usage that got prominence after' independence. --Soman (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

December 13, 2007

• Bell Records (1950s-70s) → Bell Records - The two co-owned 1960s-70s Bell Records articles were merged and the two previous Bell Records are less notable. Redirects have been inserted on the top of the merged Bell Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Notker of St Gall → Notker Balbulus - Google result demonstrates latter as more common. Michael Sanders 13:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Daumantas of Pskov → Dovmont — no such person as Daumantas ever --81.7.98.250 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• CA Monarcas Morelia → Monarcas Morelia —(Discuss)— proper name should be Monarcas Morelia,per official site of Mexican league and club website. —Matthew_hk tc 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Carignane → Carignan —(Discuss)— Page was originally at Carignan until a user moved it saying that "American spelling" should be used. However Carignan is by far the most common term used with French plantings significantly dwarfing California planting. Historically French Carignan is also more prominent. Chilean, South Africa and even some American wineries (like in Washington State) also use Carignan. Also requesting that current contents of Carignan be moved to Carignan (disambiguation) as primary topic —–Pomte 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• HeroQuest → HeroQuest (board game) -(Discuss)- Suggest move because it's easy to confuse this out of print game with the current Roleplaying Game of the same name.--WildElf (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rush-Bagot Treaty → Rush-Bagot Agreement —(Discuss)— Suggest move because it was not an actual treaty, but an agreement —Arcanedude91 (talk)1:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No place for discussion provided. When it is, this link should be included, as evidence that the situation was complicated. (For example, it did receive the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

December 12, 2007

• Barber Dodge Pro Series → Barber Pro Series —(Discuss)— Suggestion move as this is now a defunct series with two articles —Willirennen (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Barber Saab Pro Series → Barber Pro Series

This is actually a proposed merge (Discuss) --Lox (t,c) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comparison of applications launchers → Comparison of application launchers —(Discuss)— launching more than one application at a time is not a common task, and is awkward wording besides. —69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Computing minimalism → Minimalism in computing —(Discuss)— Unclear. We aren't computing minimalism or anything about it. —69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest an alternative move to Minimalism (computing) --Lox (t,c) 10:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Divine Comedy → Divine Comedy —(Discuss)— Standard usage is to refer to the Divine Comedy, not to The Divine Comedy. —Wareh (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oncogenic → Oncogenesis —(Discuss)— Noun preferred over adjective for titles. —tameeria (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma → Marie Louise of Austria, Duchess of Parma or Marie Louise of Austria —(Discuss)— As Marie Louise was Empress of the French, she is typically known, or at least identified, as a member of the House of Austria. Given that, and the importance of her pre-marital status in her selection as an imperial bride, I think it would be appropriate to rename this page Marie Louise of Austria, Duchess of Parma or even Marie Louise of Austria. —Charles 05:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

Consensus reached

Moves here have reached consensus to move but require administrator assistance

Other requested moves

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Unwanted → Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Possibly Unwanted —(Discuss)— Some of the articles on the list may not be unwanted; the fact that an article has been deleted is not necessarily an indication that it should not exist. —Chubbles (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Toba Tek Singh, Pakistan → Toba Tek Singh —(Discuss)— I think this page should be moved , as I have noted below for the district. —Pahari Sahib (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Toba Tek Singh → Toba Tek Singh District —(Discuss)— The article is about the district, not the city so I think it should be moved - also I think the Toba Tek Singh, Pakistan should then be moved to Toba Tek Singh —Pahari Sahib (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bree Hodge → Bree Van de Kamp This is Bree's common name. I think this page should be moved to common name bacause Gabrielle Solis and Susan Mayer both remarried and their pages remained the same. Why is this page an exception?Italian111 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Italian111

• Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There → Through the Looking-Glass —(Discuss)— I agree with Rtrace. The subtitle does *not* belong in the article name. -- ₪ SETH GECKO ^{¥ Give me a conversation ƒ My Contributions ¥|} ₪ 12:18 UTC | 12•02•2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Max Reinhardt (director) → Max Reinhardt —(Discuss)— Of the links in other articles to "Max Reinhardt", c. 167 refer to MR the director and 6 (six) to MR the publisher, which seems a clear indication that the director is the primary topic. There is presently a dab page at "Max Reinhardt" (prob unnecessarily, as there are in any case only two). I am happy to go back afterwards and clean up the links. —HeartofaDog (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• New Elbe Tunnel → Elbe Tunnel —(Discuss)— Mostly used in German without a "new" as disambiguating qualifier. Please help us determine correct English usage. —Kusma (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• 10 Xronia Mazi → 10 Chronia Mazi —(Discuss)— Someone created a new page for the album with the latin spelling translation of the album opposed to the Greek-lish translation. They cut and paste everything to the new page and put a redirect on the old page, but now all the history is gone. I request to move the history of 10 Xronia Mazi to [10 Chronia Mazi]]. Planecrazy22 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Template talk:Did you know → either Template:Did you know/Suggestions or Wikipedia:Did you know/Suggestions —(Discuss)— A rather unique request in that the template talk page itself be moved to a new page. Currently all suugestions for facts go here and there is no place on there to discuss the template itself. —Simply south (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Bahrani → Baharna —(Discuss)— The word "Bahrani" can't be a name for people because it is only used as an adjective (e.g. Saudi people, Iraqi people) —Jalboot (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Miller Brothers 101 Ranch → Miller Brothers 101 Ranch Wild West Show (Discuss)— Reason for move: I wanted to rename this page because this article is about the SHOW and it appears someone wants to write an article about the RANCH itself. But I created the page titled: Miller Brothers 101 Ranch Wild West Show before I fully understood how a move works. —Tintle (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Charles Elden Kingston → Elden Kingston —(Discuss)— Person is known most commonly by the name "Elden Kingston", not by the full given name. Proposed name redirects to article. —Snocrates 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Farid-al-Din Attar → Farid ad-Din Attar —(Discuss)— See WP:MOS-AR for details. The current version is a completely wrong transliteration from Arabic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• A group → A-group —(Discuss)— The unhyphenated form is incorrect. —Zundark 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• El Niño-Southern Oscillation → El Niño —(Discuss)— Current name is in violation of the MoS. I have no preference for "El Niño" over "Southern Oscillation" but both require administrator intervention. —Happy‑melon 09:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please revisit. Requires clarification before moving. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dari (Persian) → Eastern Farsi —(Discuss)— Proposed move was because of ambiguity problems with Dari (Afghanistan). Moving to the name that linguists use for the language might help get away from those problems. Unfortunately, instead of discussing the move, an editor simply moved it to Dari (Persian) which introduces new ambiguities. There is an RFC begun on 25 Nov 2007, consensus seems unlikely. Admin supervision seems indicated. —Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)