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:RMassist|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 re-list it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

Incomplete and contested proposals

With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move request, please do not discuss move requests here. If you support an incomplete or contested move request, please consider following the instructions above to create a full move request, and move the discussion to the "Other Proposals" section below.

• El Olivar, Spain → El Olivar — Replaces unnecessary disambiguation page. Both articles in disambiguation page are named differently, thus not needing a disambiguation page. — ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation is between El Olivar, Spain and Olivar, Chile. The page on Olivar, Chile previously said that Olivar is also called "El Olivar", until the nominator edited the article yesterday. If there really are two equally notable places with the same name, a disambiguation page seems reasonable. Sam Staton (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Smart growth → Smart Growth — "Smart Growth" is a slogan and common usage of it! Capital "g" is more appropriate.--Larno Man (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That sort of uppercasing is advertisementese to make something look more important, and not good English usage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reversion of undiscussed naming convention for Chilean settlements. Pending a concensus convention at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board, revert back to established convention. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile. — ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Melinka, Chile → Melinka
  • Olivar, Chile → Olivar
  • Puerto Aisén, Chile → Puerto Aisén
  • Punta Arenas, Chile → Punta Arenas
  • Renaico, Chile → Renaico
  • Río Claro, Chile → Río Claro
  • San Fabián, Chile → San Fabián
  • San José de la Mariquina, Chile → San José de la Mariquina
  • Tongoy, Chile → Tongoy
    • Comment - Most of these were also tagged for speedy page moves, but some of them have complicated edit histories die to cut and paste moves. Moreover, how are they uncontroversial if per above there isn't any accepted consensus on names. There has in fact been a lot of discussion about theses names. Wouldn't that rather suggest simply to leave all where they are until that changes? For these reasons I've removed most of the db-move tags, but other administrators have been doing moves especially in the first part of the list. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Til-Til → Tiltil — Proper name. — ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Contesting for similar reasons as stated by User:Gene Nygaard below. "Proper name" is an insufficient reason for the move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I found and moved Huerta del Maule as it was unfortunately tagged also for speedy deletion and appeared due to a preceding edit just to be a spelling error. The same seems to hold true for the others. Feel free to revert if it turns out to be ill-advised. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• East Goscote, Leicestershire --> East Goscote, pls. Swithlander (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Not done Please read above to correctly file for a request. Also, it is a city, so it is already correctly named. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It would be correctly named if it was a city in the United States, but I think our naming conventions for cities in Britain exclude the disambiguator when feasible. Dekimasuよ! 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It is a village, not a city. Manchester and Glasgow are cities. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Murray (Triple M radio presenter) to Paul Murray (radio presenter) - There is no need to be so specific as to include radio station. He is now also a TV presenter. J Bar (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Crude Oil Data Exchange (CODE) → CODE —(Discuss)— Most popular name 'CODE' Courtney L Brewer 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you set up a proper move request, please note that I oppose the move because CODE is ambiguous (it currently redirects to the programming language) and per WP:NC(P) which recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." In this case, only capitalization separates CODE from Code. — AjaxSmack 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, I suspect that your opposition will get more support since it is sound reasoning from my point of view. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Oppose this move, support moving CODE to Code (programming) and then redirecting CODE to Code. Cross porpoises (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Agree that CODE should redirect to code but the programming is already at CODE (programming language) (CODE is only a redirect) and should stay there since it's an acronym according to this FAQ. — AjaxSmack 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Pat van den Hauwe → Pat Van Den Hauwe — Correct capitalization given his Belgian heritage. — Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Heritage doesn't really matter. How does the subject spell his own name? Please provide some evidence for the need for this move. — AjaxSmack 06:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no way I can know how the subject spell his own name unless I ask him. Google search [1] returns capitalization of different variations, although "Van Den Hauwe" does at least appear commonly used. All I know is that Belgians usually capitalize "Van Den", and Dutch usually do not. This is a common mistake people make when they move page titles. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • In that case, what is there is as good as any other choice, and there is no reason for a move. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If he were Dutch, and his page is currently Pat Van Den Hauwe, we would have move it to Pat van den Hauwe, due to the fact that circumstantial evidence points to the latter. In this case, he is Belgian, and circumstantial evidence points to the former. Look at Category:Belgian footballers. The page is currently titled as such due to the common misconception that "van den" should always be non-capitalized. However, this only applies to the Dutch, and as the subject is not Dutch, "Van Den" should be capitalized unless we have evidence of otherwise, which we do not. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Drive-through → Drive-thru - The term 'Drive-thru' is much more used and referenceable than the alternative spelling. In fact, "Drive-thru" was the original correct term, but "Drive-through" was created afterwards when those spelling the word spelt it according to the syntax laws in English at the time, although the original term was not as such. In fact, almost all Drive-thru's in the world are advertised using "thru" over "through". Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see some evidence to back up your claim that "drive-thru" is used more than "drive-through". I don't know if it means anything, but here's the results of a google search:
    • "drive thru" 6,090,000 hits
    • "drive through" 6,800,000 hits
  • Since the article started as Drive-through, it should stay that way, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_the_existing_variety. Rawr (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Your search on google contains the cached "drive-through" data, so the real numbers of your biased search are significantly lower. The move must go ahead. There is no unclarity of which one is correct.
    • [2]
    • [3]
    • [4]
    • and that is without looking hard. Thank you 89.241.204.16 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess you didn't look hard enough. It isn't surprising that one news organization consistently spells one word the same. If you want to use only news sources, then please do: The same search on Google News gets "about 3,600" hits for drive-through, and only 868 hits for drive-thru. Rawr (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Drive-through" is the common (and to my knowledge only) correct spelling in the UK, so it definitely is not an uncontroversial proposal. Calling it such violates WP:ENGVAR. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My father is a proffessor of the English language and he told me it was Drive-thru, and that Drive-through was an adaptation made, in the same way that "blue-ray" is in fact the incorrect spelling of "blu-ray", even though the word "blue" is spelt with an "e" normally, but when in conjuction in such a case, it follows the 'e-lacuting' format. Through follows the same phenomenon. 84.13.21.169 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "Blu-Ray" is a trademark; "drive-thru" is not. So "Blue-Ray" is plainly a misspelling, but "drive-through" is less clear. IMO this reason is too weak to justify a move. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Peter Ainsworth (English politician) → Peter Ainsworth — Most likely use of the short name which is currently a redirect to dab — MurphiaMan (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Marathon (2005 film) → Marathon (film) — Preemptive disambiguation. No other articles exist for films of that name. — PC78 (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But there are 5 films named Marathon, and they need to be distinguished, whether or not there are Wikipedia articles about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Erm, no they don't, unless you can point me to a guideline that says otherwise. We disambiguate when necessary, not out of habit. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Even you agree that disambiguation is necessary here. Given that, it is cheap and appropriate to do so in a way avoid future renaming which is clearly indicated as a possibility by he disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If we disambiguted everything in this manner, there would be no end to it. Dab pages exist to aid navigation between similary named articles, and this one in its present state serves no such function. PC78 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with PC78 here. Pre-disambiguation should be avoided at all costs. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Villarreal/Vila-real → Vila-real —(Discuss)— Someone not discuss nothing and not fix after his move, use native name is better —Matthew_hk tc 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not the one who moved this down, and I don't like double names, we should use the one by which it is best known in English. But in any case, it sure looks like things such as Villarreal CF might be a pretty good indication of the "native name", too. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it should be called Villarreal. Villarreal is the official Spanish (Castillian) name and Vila-real is the Catalan/Valencian name. I think there are reasons to be a bit careful when moving articles to a regional language, since this basically is a political issue in Spain. See for example Donostia wich is a redirect to San Sebastián. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Prudential (Guaranty) Building (Buffalo, New York) → Prudential Building — No other Prudential Buildings, so no need for disambiguation. — robwingfield ^«T•C» 15:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Google search shows Prudential Buildings in several cities in UK and USA. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Prudential Building===Newark, New Jersey. So this needs to be a dab. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand you can lose the (Buffalo, New York) - like the other Prudential buildings, Prudential Tower, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Prudential Center 199.125.109.135 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tom-Yum-Goong → The Protector (2005 film) — Requested move from Thai to English-language title, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Foreign-language films. The Protector (2005 film) already exists as a redirect page. — Gram123 (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is uncontroversial. The film is also titled Warrior King in the UK. Why settle on the US title? The proposed move to The Protector (2005 film) is also inaccurate, as it wasn't released as The Protector until 2006. — WiseKwai 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's still a 2005 film regardless. The guideline clearly calls for using an English-language title, but a case would have to be made for using one of these over the other. PC78 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The film was produced in 2005, and this is what is noted in the article, so I think that's safe. As for the English title, I am in the UK myself, and considered proposing the move to Warrior King. However, I went with The Protector as this title is used in USA, Canada and Australia, whereas the English title of Warrior King is solely used in the UK and Ireland. As such, I think Warrior King should be the redirect. Gram123 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How about the fact that its English title was Tom-Yum-Goongin the film festivals long before it was released in the US. or the fact that majority of the world never heard of it being titled The Protector or Warrior King. It's actually a different movie also after all the editing by Weinstein, hence 'US release as the Protector' section. Case in point Laputa: Castle in the Sky which still refer to its Japanese original. Suredeath (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We're supposed to be using the most widely known English-language titles for films, not trying to find the title that will be recognisable to the most people in the world. "Tom-Yum-Goong" may have been used at festivals, but it is not English, and it is not the title the majority of people from English-speaking countries will know, so when they search the English-language Wikipedia, they're less likely to find what they want. If you're going to use "Tom-Yum-Goong", it's little more useful to non-Thai speaking people than "ต้มยำกุ้ง". Yes, we can have a redirect from "Tom-Yum-Goong", yes we can detail the Thai title and it's phonetic approximation, and yes we can talk about the US version being a different cut to the original. However, the article title should still be in English. Gram123 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My own preference would be for Warrior King, since it was released under this title first and is apparently less heavily cut than the US version. Personally, though, I'd be happy to keep this one where it is; I'm not sure when or why the guideline changed, but I always thought using the native title was a good compromise over US vs UK naming conflicts. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, agreed. As it isn't really clear which English-language title is "most commonly known", going with the one that was released first seems the best option. When I proposed The Protector, it was simply guesswork based on potential market size, and besides, if we move it to Warrior King, it will reduce potential confusion with the Jackie Chan film The Protector (1985 film). However, I don't think "least vs most cut" should really come into it, cos people could end up arguing about a minute of film. I definitley don't think we should leave it as Tom-Yum-Goong, as this is clearly the least well known of the 3 options to people from English-speaking countries. Gram123 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I still disagree. The International English title is still "Tom-Yum-Goong", whereas the Warrior King and the Protector are use in exactly two countries. Heck, in Thailand we HAVE an English-language title provided by the film maker. You know... like the English promotional material used in Thailand [[5]].Suredeath (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hedvig Malina → Hedviga Malinová —(Discuss)— Hedviga Malinová is her legal name and the name she uses. It's also the name the media use except for the Hungarian media, because Hedvig Malina is the Hungarian version of the name. —Svetovid (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I ask administrators to not make this move. She is ethnic Hungarian and if you read the article, you will see that using her Slovakized name would be more than controversial. Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.
    
    • There is absolutely no concensus about this move. She has a Hungarian name, she uses her Slovak name for Slovak documents. English language sources that we have tend to use the name "Hedvig Malina". Squash Racket (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • English sources don't use it. Only Hungarian sources writing in English use it, which is a huge difference.
        Also, don't forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We can't just make consensus about things opposing facts.
        "She has a Hungarian name." So do many other things, places and people. This is an English encyclopaedia however.
        There is no such a thing as a "Slovakized," which isn't even a word, name. It's her legal name, the name given by her parents and the name she uses. Also, saying you don't want it to be changed because you don't like it does not sound like a proper reason.--Svetovid (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point to this debate so that any administrator can see that the current name is just obstruction and inaccurate.--Svetovid (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Administrators will see that there is absolutely no concensus about the name. Squash Racket (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Facts cannot be changed by consensus. You still fail to realize that one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is verifiability and that Wikipedia is not a democracy, where facts can be changed by voting.
      Malinová and here family indeed use this name so you go against naming conventions.
      You also go against "the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known." Since its her legal name, the name Malinová and her family use and the name English sources use (except for Hungarian media writing in English, which was already pointed out).--Svetovid (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Google hits: 309000 for Hedvig Malina, 12000 for Hedviga Malinová; most common name?
      • Hungarian sources writing in English use the Hungarian form (only one version), Slovak sources writing in English use the Slovak form (sometimes with an accent, sometimes not). As the article is about a hate crime I would go for the Hungarian name usage. Új Szó, the official newspaper of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia applies the Hungarian name, so the community living there refers to her by the Hungarian name. The article is about a living person, this is a sensitive topic anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I must jump in. I do not know where this strange google count came from. In reality, there are 411 English pages using the name "Hedvig Malina"[6] and 488 English pages using the name "Hedviga Malinova"[7] Tankred (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The move is requested to Hedviga Malinová, not Hedviga Malinova. Squash Racket (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• DVB-H and DVB-SH → DVB-H — There is a discussion on the talk page to determine how the title should be best written. Indeed, a single purpose account has switched some days ago to the longer title, without discussion. I ask to move it back to the original, short version. --Cantalamessa (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• White privilege (sociology) --> White privilege - It looks like this was the subject of a dispute more than 2 years ago. That doesn't strike me as recent, but I put it under "controversial" anyway. It looks like this was just a translation problem that has since been fixed. Profepstein (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify... "white privilege" used to be ambiguous. Now it isn't, and hasn't been for a while. White privilege (sociology) is the only article on white privilege. To quote another similar proposal above, "undisambiguated pages shouldn't redirect to disambiguated ones." I think the same reasoning applies in this case. Profepstein (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But thereby it is still ambiguous when reading older written matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • But the older stuff was badly named. It's been fixed now, to reflect its commonly used name. It's no longer ambiguous, and hasn't been ambiguous for a long time. Right now there's just a redirect from white privilege to white privilege (sociology). I'd say that's an unnecessary redirect. Profepstein (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• hip dysplasia) --> hip dysplasia - in animals and hip dysplasia - in humans - Although some aspects are certainly similar, having the human and veterinarian condition on the same page is confusing and unparalleled. Starting the human condition off as a stub would enable contributors to put info in a relevant place and frame.

Other proposals

February 18 2008

• Rossz csillag alatt született → Rossz Csillag Alatt Született —(Discuss)— album titles should use title caps, since that is the heavily enforced convention —= ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Amgen Tour of California → Tour of California —(Discuss)— More common name (Google says 276k v 76k) and a more stable name. —Severo^TC 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stuttgart Beer Festival → Stuttgart Volksfest —(Discuss)— The event is quite simply not a beer festival - misnomer —BuzzWoof (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) BuzzWoof (talk)

• German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina → Leopoldina —(Discuss)— see talk page —Axt (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Priština → Pristina —(Discuss)— by far the most common English spelling is without a diacritic, and this 'anglicized' spelling avoids political conflict between the serbian spelling (Priština) and the Albanian spelling (Prishtina) —Abc30 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Y.R. K.V. Mechelen → KV Mechelen —(Discuss)— per WP:Common name (Move was requested February 16) Sebisthlm (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F. → Académica de Coimbra OAF —(Discuss)— The professional football club is most commonly known as "Académica Coimbra" in English, but to prevent the article being mistaken with the other sports departments or the students' union I kept "OAF" in the nomination. (Move was requested February 16) Sebisthlm (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Associação Académica de Coimbra → Coimbra Academic Association —(Discuss)— WP:name, WP:common name states that articles should generally be in English. Sebisthlm (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also added: Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Voleibol → Coimbra Academic Association - volleyball section, Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Futebol → Coimbra Academic Association - amateur football section, Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Hóquei → Coimbra Academic Association - rink hockey section, Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Andebol → Coimbra Academic Association - team handball section, Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Rugby → Coimbra Academic Association - rugby section, Associação Académica de Coimbra - Secção de Basquetebol → Coimbra's Academic Association - basketball section, Radio Universidade de Coimbra → Coimbra University radio. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reanimator (disambiguation) → Reanimator —(Discuss)— Usage of the word does not seem overwhelming enough to have an article at the unmodified page, so it looks like the disambiguator should get it. —- Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

February 17 2008

• Password cracking → Password recovery —(Discuss)— To conform WP:NPOV —Dadudadu (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons (Discuss)— The name of the article causes it to appear biased and requires a name that matches the information and shows a neutral point of view.
  • Proposed title should be capitalised Pakistan and nuclear weapons per WP:NAME. I have no opinion otherwise. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dido (Queen of Carthage) → Dido —(Discuss)— This is the way it was originally, which was correct. User: Edgy88 is promoting the singer Dido (singer) and in the process of moves he has made to promote the singer the "Dido (disambiguation)" page has been lost. Need to have Dido go to Dido (Queen of Carthage) with "otheruses" template at the top which will go correctly then to the disambiguation page. Most correct would be if "Dido (Queen of Carthage)" is changed back to just "Dido" as it was originally.--Doug ^talk 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deal Island (Tasmania) → Deal Island, Tasmania —(Discuss)— In order to fit in with WP:MOS. As a general guideline, as explained on its talk page. —— Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

February 16 2008

• Taito Corporation → Taito —(Discuss)— This is what the company is almost always called (both by themselves and by others). The only time they use "Taito Corporation" is when they need to do so for legal reasons (i.e. copyright notices). —TJ Spyke 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• RIM-161 Standard missile 3 → RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 —(Discuss)— Clearcut WP:NC capitalisation issue for proper noun, but one editor is unhappy with this. —GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VL Mike (rapper) → VL Mike —(Discuss)— Better title for the page due to the fact that there is only one person that goes by the name VL Mike and he is a rapper. Unfortunately VL Mike is a redirect page to Chopper City Boyz the group of which VL Mike the rapper is a former member so it can't just be moved. —Choppercity (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:FAQ → Wikipedia:FAQ Index and then Wikipedia:Very Frequently Asked Questions → Wikipedia:FAQ —(Discuss)— Reorganizing per WT:FAQ so that FAQ page will actually contain "frequently asked questions" (by later Moving VFAQ to FAQ). —Sbowers3 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

February 15 2008

• Go-faster stripes → Racing stripe —(Discuss)— Clearly a better title for page. Go-faster stripes is slang, Racing stripe is not. Unfortunately Racing stripe is a redirect page to Racing Stripes the movie so it can't just be moved. —Scottanon (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Novak Đoković → Novak Djokovic —(Discuss)— Massive preponderance of evidence, including his own official English language website, as well as all English-language media that I could find, suggest that the name is written "Novak Djokovic" in English. Thus, in accordance with WP:UE, I think we should change the title —Erudy (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Angola-Russia relations → Soviet-Angolan relations —(Discuss)— Only adresses the era before 1990 in any depth, more of a history article than anything about the present. —Kevlar67 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Iron maiden → Iron maiden (disambiguation) —(Discuss)— per WP:NC(P) which recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." In this case, only one letter capitalization separates Iron maiden, a disambiguation page, from Iron Maiden, the band. This would not affect the location of the band article. — AjaxSmack 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

February 14 2008

• NECCO → Necco — Talk:NECCO — —scarecroe (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Actually the website clearly says it's NECCO. http://www.necco.com/AboutUs/Default.asp --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Warmia and Masuria plebiscite → East Prussian plebiscite —(Discuss)— Most popular name —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Juristic person → Legal person —(Discuss)— synonym and much more common on reputable sites, see talk page —Espoo (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Local anesthetic toxicity (temp) → Local anesthetic toxicity —(Discuss)— failed attempt by author to fix incorrect capitalization per Wikipedia naming convention (also delete Local Anesthetic Toxicity) —Anon lynx (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Japanese honorifics → Honorific speech in Japanese —(Discuss)— Current title doesn't reflect article contents —Bikasuishin (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• John of England → John, King of England —(Discuss)— There has been considerable discussion on WT:NCNT about what we should do about monarchs who are commonly called by name alone, without Roman numeral. We have been calling this king John of England, but several users want to change to John, King of England for clarity. What does the wider community think? —Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• National Express → National Express (bus company) —(Discuss)— National Express name is more synonymous with its parent company so this should be moved for disambiguation, with (after the move, if it goes ahead) National Express redirecting to National Express Group —Simply south (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. On the one hand I would say that with the ongoing rebranding of all operations to National Express xxx, National Express may come to mean to most people, the group as a whole, however, on the other hand, the rebranding is being done entirely because of the public trust/recognition with the original long distance coaching National Express name/company. So that's a firm sit on the fence for now. As an aside, I would have at least said National Exress Coaches or National Express (coach company) as the proposed new name. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

February 13 2008

• Guardian Unlimited → guardian.co.uk —(Discuss)— The site has been rebranded —roddie digital (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Samuil of Bulgaria → Samuel of Bulgaria —(Discuss)— English spelling, used in standard sources, from Ostrogorsky to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and Fine's Early Medieval Balkans. —Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Fucking Åmål → Show Me Love —(Discuss)— The latter is the title used in all English versions, AFAIK. Plus the previous move request around two years ago had flawed rationales used to oppose the move —WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Lifeboat → Lifeboat (disambiguation) —(Discuss)— IMO, there is one clearcut primary meaning, which currently resides at Lifeboat (shipboard). That one should be moved to Lifeboat. —Clarityfiend (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I ♥ Huckabees → I Heart Huckabees —(Discuss)— per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) - Article titles should use the Latin alphabet, not any other alphabets or other writing systems such as syllabaries or Chinese characters. However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name). Also, a non-Latin-alphabet redirect could be created to link to the actual Latin-alphabet-titled article. —Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Lammergeier → Bearded Vulture —(Discuss)— Bearded Vulture is the proper English term (Lämmergeier is German) and appears to be the more commonly used term in English scholarly literature about this bird. —tameeria (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Joesph Jeremiah → Joey Jeremiah —(Discuss)— The page was moved (without discussion) to Joesph "Joey" Jeremiah earlier today. Another editor's good-faith attempt to reverse this move left it at the current location, which is neither the original place nor the correct spelling of "Joseph". This move request would restore the article to its original place. —Ckatz^chat_spy 09:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Brunswick-Lüneburg → Brunswick-Lunenburg —(Discuss)— WP:NC(GN) states: If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. Brunswick-Lunenburg ceased to exist in 1806 and the "Brunswick" half of the name is in English but the Lüneburg is in German. — AjaxSmack 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Braunschweig → Brunswick (Germany) —(Discuss)—per WP:Use English. — AjaxSmack 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed (September 10 or older).

• 1999 Montréal Expos season → 1999 Montreal Expos season —(Discuss)— An editor moved some, but not all, of the Montreal Expos seasons articles to "Montréal Expos seasons". All but this article have been moved back, in keeping with en-wiki usage (use the established English version of the name), as well as to be consistent with the main Montreal Expos article (where the consensus was to keep the article at Montreal Expos rather than Montréal Expos) and the Canadian Style Guide. This last article requires an Admin to move it to the non-accented title. —Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• The relation between Islam and science → Islam and science —(Discuss)— "The relationship between" is implied and unnecessary for the title and subject of the article —Yahel Guhan 03:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Charlie Johnson (basketball) → Charles Johnson (basketball) —(Discuss)— IMHO, this page should be moved, because most sources seem to use his full name. For example, see the difference in Google hits: "Charlie Johnson" basketball -wikipedia (7,190) and "Charles Johnson" basketball -wikipedia (32,300). In addition, these two articles from the San Francisco Chronicle ([8], [9]), use only his full name as opposed to his nickname. This leads me to conclude that he was more often referred to by Charles than Charlie, and according to Wikipedia policy, we should go with the most common name. —Bash Kash (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tossed (salad bar) → Tossed - I don't understand why Tossed redirects to Frank Black (album), whats that got to do with anything? acasperw (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Because one of the songs on the album is "Tossed".
  • Incomplete. Is this article notable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why isn't it? Its just as notable as the Eat. artical, and why cannot the Frank Black song be renamed Tossed (song), as Tossed is a registred food company (which i happen to work for), google it? ( Tossed, st martins lane, or Tossed sheldon square ) acasperw (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Still not a completed nomination. I would oppose this since it is not the primary usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This should redirect to the dab page, tossing anyways, as primary usage is neither. 70.55.84.225 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• TUMIKI Fighters → ? —(Discuss)— The current name violates MOS. I am not sure if it should be move to Tumiki Fighters, or Blast Works: Build, Trade, Destroy (the name of the console version). I personally think we should use the Blast Works name. —TJ Spyke 11:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ben Sira → Sirach —(Discuss)— More common name; or possibly Ecclesiasticus. —SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• E*TRADE → E-Trade —(Discuss)— Trademark style guidelines. Complications involving the disambiguation page at Etrade are mentioned in the discussion area. —Tigeron (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hors d'œuvre → Hors d'oeuvre —(Discuss)— While Hors d'œuvre is the correct spelling in French, this is the English wiki. Any reliable dictionary gives the primary (or only) spelling as Hors d'oeuvre —The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• X-Men: The Twelve → Apocalypse: The Twelve —(Discuss)— Proper name of the content of the article. —Rau J16 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Order of Dobrzyń → Order of Dobrin —(Discuss)— More common. There had already been a move war over it a year ago. —Sciurinæ (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• WWE Friday Night SmackDown! → WWE SmackDown —(Discuss)— WWE have finally dropped the exclamation mark last night on the logo featured on the TV show's on-screen graphics and apron. (Some of it can be seen in the new set's photos) There's now officially no reason to keep the exclamation mark. — Oakster  Talk  10:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Football in the Republic of Ireland → Association football in the Republic of Ireland —(Discuss)— I am proposing this move, as during the previous requested move, some other users supported the idea of moving this page to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. This move would remove the ambiguity of the term 'football' which is also commonly used in Ireland to refer to Gaelic football and sometimes rugby football. As it appears the term 'soccer' is quite unpopular, perhaps this move would be more appropriate - association football being the least worst title. As shown here and at many articles concerning soccer in different countries, an ongoing consensus has been to move to 'Association football in...', even in countries where there are no other forms of football popular on a large scale; this is more important in RoI, where there are competing sports which style themselves as 'football'. This move would also help bring continuity throughout the encyclopedia. —EJF (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)