Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
"Wikipedia:RFPM" redirects here. For the place to request the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
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 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:

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It 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. 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 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.

Requesting technical moves[edit]

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:

    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason = reason for move}}

    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:

  • 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.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. 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, because 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 request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 26 March 2017" and sign for you.

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

Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article Alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other 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.

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. It is a place for rational discussion of whether an article should be renamed.

There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., Support or Oppose, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
  • Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior Requested Moves. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructions[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.


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. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

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, such as 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.

March 26, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Euan MacLeodEuan Macleod – It appears that the requested name has the correct capitalisation. I have found both lowercase and uppercase "l" in various references on the web, but the lowercase "l" seems to predominate. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an official reference to check against. For what it is worth, the Wikipedia article solely uses the lowercase "l" version in the text. Kiwi128 (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

March 25, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Total Nonstop Action WrestlingImpact Wrestling (promotion) – per the discussions above. Total Nonstop Action Wrestling has changed its name to Impact Wrestling, and all media covering this promotion will clearly refer to it by its new name for the foreseeable future. There is a desire to maintain their television series Impact Wrestling as a separate and distinct topic on Wikipedia, so parenthetical disambiguation seems the best solution for now. This might eventually become the primary topic for the title, if the TV series article is parenthetically disambiguated, and all existing links to the TV show are re-targeted to the new title of the TV series. wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kittatinny MountainKittatinny Ridge – Page 'K. Mountains' was created correctly as (now a redirect Kittatinny Mountains (edit talk links history), and when no opposition appeared, was moved per RfM.
     • Redirect Kittatinny Ridge (edit talk links history) was created separately, also correctly, with a proper broader focus. The mountain chain is a continuation of the ridge running from New York, through New Jersey, cut by the Delaware River (Delaware Water Gap) and runs about 150 miles tending south in Pennsylvania as the first barrier ridge of the Ridge-and-Valley_Appalachians as it is the southern/eastern outlier of the the Ridge-and-Valley_Appalachians geologic province and actually extends into Georgia past Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina.
     • The real impetus for this suggestion is Kittatinny, by any name is geophysically part of the Blue_Mountain_(Pennsylvania) barrier ridge, sundered by the Delaware Water Gap. 'Loosing' the ridge characteristic in any name (an 's' suffix preserves it) to me confuses matters, relying on such a poor name choice is contraindicated.
     • My preference would be to honor the USGS historic nomenclature most commonly seen on older USGS Map series, making 'Kittatinny Ridge' (New Jersey division) the primary article name, as the articles are about the chain... the ridge, not focused solely some local peak (which are mostly common referents to news coverage and smallish local municipal civil engineering project planning discussions. (For examples: See ridges labels on maps for examples: in Nesquehoning Creek (map: 1893 style "ridge" seen along some ridgelines, while other barrier ridges have "Mountain's'" instead and compare to Broad Mountain (what is possible with USGS software - computer generated last few months. We no longer have to put up with features off center, or that have an quadrangle's edge division splitting the map).
     • Furthermore, today, every coordinate on most our every articles can give users access geohack topographic maps with a few clicks, and depending on the service, the old alternative ridge names are alive and well. They are also far more plain to see with modern map software such as Acme linked by the GNIS/USGS software — the author seems to be a bloody genius about combining and merging data from multiple sources. FrankB 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC) // FrankB 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ZordList of Zords – This article was converted to list format a year ago. Unsure if "zords" (the mecha on Power Rangers) should be capitalized; it seems to have a generic sense when not used as part of a proper name. Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Karim KhanKarim Khan Zand – Most sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Iranica etc) identify him as 'Karim Khan Zand', rather than simply Karim Khan. They always start to spell his full name (Karim Khan Zand) and then simply use 'Karim Khan' for the sake of simplicity, which is the same I intend to do with this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Liberals for Forestsliberals for forests – This was improperly moved as uncontroversial to the uncapitalised version several years ago, but unfortunately none of us noticed. The party's name, rather infamously, was not capitalised. Frickeg (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Memphis Wrestling Southern Heavyweight ChampionshipAWA Southern Heavyweight Championship – The current name reflected the last promotion to use the championship, but that was only active until 2009, with ONE show in 2014 - it is not active any more so this would definitly fall under WP:COMMONNAME - which to me is the "AWA Southern Heavyweight Championship", the name used from 1978 to 1987, when the Memphis territory was at it's height. It was the championship of Jerry Lawler when he feuded with Andy Kaufmann and is the common name - the current name is 4th or 5th ib the order IMO (AWA, then USWA, NWA).  MPJ-DK  20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)100 Years (film)100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See – It's a better title, because it is a little more vague about what the entity is -- which in this case is what we want, since what the entity is is somewhat uncertain. Disambiguation is needed here, since 100 Years (song) exists. But by disambiguating with "(film)" we are, by clear implication, presenting this entity as being in essence similar to other "(film)" entities, such as Star Wars (film) and The Dark Knight (film). But its not. Whatever you think of this entity, and even if you do believe a film exists (and as the Washington Post says, "maybe it does"), it's quite an unusual phenomena. The entity being described here is quite difference in its essence from what is described by other film articles -- after all no living person has seen it or ever will (except the people who made it and their associates). "100 Years: The Movie You Will Never See" is just the long form of the title (we use it to open the lede), and avoids the somewhat debatable proposition that what the reader is about to read is the same as any other article about a film. Maybe it is, but its debatable, so let's just avoid the issue, since we have a perfectly acceptable alternate disambiguation term. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Azteca (multimedia conglomerate)TV Azteca – After some years of calling itself just Azteca, the company actually restored TV to its name and changed out signage at its studios and offices. (For instance: 2014 vs. 2016; 2015 vs. 2016) I have taken control of this RM as it was done by an IP editor who is evading blocks, but it actually is not a bad idea. Raymie (tc) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hand on the TorchHand On the Torch – I believe this title is not about an actual hand on an actual torch, but rather means "pass the torch". So "hand on" is a phrasal verb here, and "on" is not used as a preposition, and must thus be capitalized according to MOS:CT. Darkday (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane talk 17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Murder City (TV series)Murder City – "Murder City" redirects here, making me feel the "TV series" addition in brackets is unnecessary. But if the discussion goes against my favour, "Murder City" may be converted to a DAB page. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Queen HemasRatu Hemas – It's a bit ridiculous to use "Queen" instead of "Ratu". * The Javanese/Malay "Ratu" cannot be translated into "Queen" in this instance. * The wikipedia pages of consorts of Malaysian monarchs all use Malay titles. See Raja Permaisuri Agong, Sultanah Haminah Hamidun & Permaisuri Siti Aishah Abdul Rahman to cite just a few examples. * Queen implies a monarch or a monarch's consort reigning over an independent sovereign nation. The Sultans of Yogyakarta only reign over a province (not even a constituent state of a federation, like Malaysia). This RM was originally proposed by User:AnakPejuangIndonesia on 14:50, 2 March 2017 but it was unsigned and not using the correct template. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.JFG talk 07:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wiarton RockWiarton Schooners – The franchise changed ownership and name. I moved the page. The owners contested that they were not "associated" with the former franchise and I moved it back. Evidence points to the owners just trying to push marketing and WP:BIAS (they kept deleting info instead of collaborating) to disassociate from the previous owners. The official league stance indicates that it was a franchise transfer and not an expansion (all other expansion announcements are titled "Expansion: ____", this one never mentioned expansion). Verdict is the Rock needs to move over the redirect of the Schooners. Yosemiter (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Yosemiter (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Jordanian occupation of the West BankJordanian West Bank – Better reflects the contents of the article, which discusses the history of the region between 1948-67. The initial act of occupation (as in "invasion") is covered in the article on the 1948 war. Describing the 1948-67 period as an occupation is factually incorrect, as the area was annexed (see the article military occupation which explains the difference) with the explicit consent of the Palestinians. There was some debate from other Arab states as to whether Jordanian control should be permanent, or more like a "trusteeship", but the Jordanians were clear that this was a permanent arrangement and provided full civilian control and citizenship. So I propose we simplify the title to remove both confusion (for readers that are looking for info about the invasion) and stop it from misleading (for those that readers that the word occupation would make think this was military control like the current status in the West Bank). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)En Marche!En Marche ! – Notice the addition of a space before the exclamation point. Per the first footnote, essentially - that is the correct form in French punctuation. Guidelines say we should use the form most common in English-speaking sources if there is one. However, I do not think the particular form "En Marche!" is really dominant - most propose a translation or drop the exclamation mark. So I think we should default to the French name, including the punctuation, and put the title in italics (see WP:ITALICTITLE, MOS:FOREIGNITALIC). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky Second ChapterThe Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky SC – SC stands for "Second Chapter" and may be a more clear title, but the game is presently referred to in all official contexts as "SC". This includes, but is not limited to: XSEED's websites, the store pages from which the game is sold, and the game's actual logo. Searching for "...SC" also provides more results than "...Second Chapter", and anecdotally the fanbase usually refers to it as "...SC". The Japanese name also uses "...SC". The only thing going for "...Second Chapter" is clarity, but might that be a valid enough reason? (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Central Alaskan Yup'ik peopleYup'ik people – Central Alaskan Yup'ik is unfamiliar to any person who speaks English, except maybe for a few academics. The reason behind this titling is perhaps to distinguish between Yupik people (in general) and Yup'ik people specifically. Instead of using the highly pedantic name Central Alaskan Yup'ik, just change the name to Yup'ik people and add at the top "Not to be confused with:" Yupik people, referring to multiple Yupik-speaking peoples Naulagmi (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zanzithophone → ? – "Zanzithophone" is not a commonly used term for this musical instrument, and is only mentioned in one work of fiction. The term appears to have been invented by a 1990s band for no obvious reason. The correct name (used by the instrument's manufacturer and the majority of its owners and players) is "Casio DH-100 Digital Horn". Simon (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Svetlana LobodaLoboda (singer) – Since 2010 Svetlana Loboda uses her last name Loboda (stylized as LOBODA) for her music career and is recognized by this name on her music releases and social media. Because "Loboda" is used for other people with this surname, my proposal is "Loboda (singer)" as the best way people might search for her article on Wikipedia. Lucas RdS (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Short Message ServiceSMS – per WP:COMMONNAME. This was suggested in the previous just-closed RM with no objection. There was a prior RM in 2009 that moved the article to "SMS", and I'm not sure how it got moved back to where it is. As with DVD and CD, this topic is primarily encountered in its abbreviated form, and (although there are other topics identified at SMS (disambiguation)) this topic appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "SMS". SMS has redirected here for 5 years and was the title of the article before that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Panic! at the DiscoPanic at the Disco – Per MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM, to remove a purely decorative exclamation point that is not included consistently in practice (e.g., as with "macys" and "skate."). Wikipedia guidelines discourage this sort of decorative punctuation. Per this article, the exclamation point isn't even usually used by the band members themselves and was officially dropped from the name at some point in time. The frontman said he never used it and the guitarist also said it was a bit annoying. A previous discussion on the article talk page in 2013 favored removal of the exclamation point, but the attempt to move the article failed due to inadequate account privilege. (See the discussion section entitled "The !exclamation!".) The article has been moved back and forth before (and an RM in 2009 decided to add the exclamation mark). Since someone suggested nominating the article for GA evaluation, it seems desirable to settle this properly. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chen yihanChen Yidan – someone had previously created Chen Yidan, but made mistakes with copyright violations and tonality of the article. Consequently, this got deleted and blocked from recreation. The original author made a somewhat better attempt under a wrong name Chen yihan which I then tried to improve further with references and removal of controversial language. The article still needs some work, but I definitely think the person is noteworthy as key figure of one of China's biggest internet companies and emerging major philanthropist. See references that have been added. Thx. Jake Brockman (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saint George's CrossSt. George's Cross – * I may have made a mistake with the Saint George's Cross move, St. (or St) looks to be the common n-gram name]. The way I looked at it was that it was Saint George's cross, referring to the individual who is the namesake of the cross, and missed that it seems to be a proper name. I was going with MOS:SAINTS on this and missing that it was a proper name. My apologies. Then again, would MOS:SAINTS apply, and negate the common name policy, thus rendering the page name Saint George's cross, lower-case 'c'? Maybe, but probably not. (EDIT a few minutes later: Well, maybe. Lower-case "c" is a red-link but maybe it's accurate] Randy Kryn 00:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Sex trade in GhanaProstitution in Ghana – I really intended this article Sex trade in Ghana to be about prostitution and thought sex trade is a good a descriptor and then realized that Prostitution in Ghana would be a more appropriate title. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Batman (1989 film series)Batman film series (1989) – This article is about the series of Batman films begun with 1989’s Batman. To the best of my knowledge, there is no collective title for this series. The current name of the article implies that the four films are collectively called simply “Batman,” which seems misleading if this is not the case. The proposed title is descriptive, with the parenthetical year disambiguating it from the Dark Knight movies and earlier serials (which are also not collectively named “Batman”). Put simply, the subject of this article is not itself called “Batman”; it’s a film series featuring that character. — (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Outline of Bible-related topicsOutline about the Bible – I suggested a name at the recent AfD, which was adopted, but I hadn't put much thought into it when I made the suggestion, and I thought of potentially much better solution right afterwards. I figured those in the discussion would appreciate being informed of it, and pinged them. If the new article title can improve the encyclopedia, it's worth considering. It is less wordy, removes the redundant "topics" (outlines by definition are lists of topics), presents the Bible as the root subject rather than marginalizing it into the adjective "Bible-related", and drops the superfluous punctuation (hyphen). The Transhumanist 12:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 02:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Jeffrey R. ImmeltJeff ImmeltWP:COMMONNAME. Immelt is more commonly referred as "Jeff", because a Google search for "Jeff Immelt" returns nearly 370k results. "Jeffrey R. Immelt" only 202k, and "Jeffrey Immelt" 172k. Furthermore, adding to the above search queries, to restrict searches to The Wall Street Journal articles, finds nearly 850 results for "Jeff Immelt", ~500 for "Jeffrey Immelt", and ~100 for "Jeffrey R. Immelt". And it's dubious why "First M. Last" is the article title in the first place, since this name does not require disambiguation. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islandsUS nuclear weapons in Japan – US nuclear weapons were not only based in the Japanese islands but also in several mainland Japan locations as well as several other locations in Asia. A reliable source has the following text: "Misawa and Itazuki airbases (and possibly at Atsugi, Iwakuni, Johnson, and Komaki airbases as well), and nuclear-armed U.S. Navy ships stationed in Sasebo and Yokosuka".[1]
  1. ^ How much did Japan know? by Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin, and William Burr, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists January/February 2000 Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 11-13, 78-79

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Knowledge GraphKnowledge Graph (Google implementation) – This article is only about the Google implementation of knowledge graphs, that's why it should be renamed. Wikipedia is there to eduacate people, so an article with the title "Knowledge Graph" should be about this general term and not about a specific implementation of it. Furthermore there are tonnes of prior research using the therm "knowledge graph" in academia. ERusz (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Flying lizardFlying Lizard – All uncapitalized meanings of the term on this page are merely variations of lizards that are able to fly (or, technically, glide); the only truly ambiguous meanings are capitalized. Move this page to the capitalized tile and redirect the uncapitalized form to Draco (genus), which encompasses all actual flying lizards. bd2412 T 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kabushima ShrineKabushima – move orphan stub into main article; the island is the National Natural Monument, not the shrine; a separate article on the shrine can be recreated if/when more material and secondary sources are obtained MChew (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)St. John's Church, KadammanittaKadammanittapally – Organization is known as kadammanittapally as you see over the internet. There are multiple churches in the present name in same locality, therefore the current name is confusing. Please rename to Kadammanittapally or St. John's Orthodox Church, Kadammanitta. If you move over google maps in the locality, you could find churches with same name. Robincsamuel (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss)Azteca (TV network)Azteca América – The network has started going by Azteca América again. The site redirects to which features an "Azteca América" logo. News articles and press releases use the full name (examples: [4], [5]). Additionally the current location of "Azteca (TV network)" generates confusion with sister networks named Azteca 7 and Azteca Trece in Mexico, plus Azteca Guatemala and Azteca Honduras. Raymie (tc) 06:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss)Sámuel MikovinySamuel Mikoviny – The form "Sámuel" is only Hungarian transcription of his name, like Mikovíni is Slovak transcription. Mikoviny personally used the form without accents - Samuel Mikoviny. This form is language neutral and should be preffered, since numerous sources contain information about another nationality. Thus, the rationale behind the previous debate is wrong, the argument that he was "a Hungarian" and Sámuel was his native name is more than questinable and the conclusion based on this argument is problematic. Ditinili (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kalki BhagavanSri Bhagavan – The present title of the article is not the common name used to address the subject The name Kalki was a title given earlier by subject's students and can confuse readers with Kalki from Hindu mythology. As seen from the article space, "Sri Bhagavan" is the name of the subject. Request to have the name changed. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sir George YoungGeorge Young, Baron Young of Cookham – The previous RM debate was closed as moving to Sir George Young as a compromise. However, only one contributor actually backed this. Of the other contributors, one wanted it to remain at George Young (politician), two wanted it moved to the proposed title of George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, one supported a move to George Young, Baron Young of Cookham or Sir George Young, 6th Baronet, and one was happy with George Young, Baron Young of Cookham, Sir George Young, 6th Baronet or George Young (politician). I have no idea why, therefore, it was moved to its current title, which we usually avoid. Yes, he is most commonly known as Sir George Young; however, many knights and baronets (probably the majority) are commonly known as "Sir Foo Foo". Yet almost none of our articles are titled this way. WP:NCPEER is perfectly clear on what the article title should be. Given we do need to disambiguate his name, it should be at either his peerage title or his baronetage title. There is no problem with this whatsoever and the clear majority of contributors to the previous discussion actually supported the former as the higher title. The close should have been challenged at the time as not resembling the actual outcome of the discussion in any way and essentially a "supervote" on the part of the closer which was only supported by the opinion of a single contributor to the discussion. I see no reason whatsoever to go against our longstanding accepted guidelines for this single solitary individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Intake (disambiguation)IntakeIntake is a word with a broad range of meanings, and I don't think that the current article at intake (opening on a car or aircraft body) satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Actually, google:Intake produces a mixed bag of links, and I don't think there is primary topic for "intake", thus it should be a disambiguation page. No such user (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    Now, I don't feel strongly about the second part of the move, i.e. proposed target for the current article, but "air intake" (while still somewhat ambiguous itself) already redirects there, and we probably lack a better name for this rather broad concept. It is at least consistent with spinoff articles such as Cold air intake or Ram-air intake. No such user (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Augment (linguistics)Augment (Indo-European) – There is also an augment in the Bantu languages, which is completely unrelated other than the name (which was perhaps inspired by the IE augment). The two phenomena should have separate articles, as merely being called "augment" is not enough reason to discuss them all on the same page, as is currently done. CodeCat (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FIA Formula 2 Championship (2017-)FIA Formula 2 Championship – Current FIA Formula 2 Championship is a primary meaning, we can't use year for the disambiguation purpose as the article includes earlier years (2005-2016), when the series was known as GP2 Series. Or we should separate articles, but it has less sense as it's exactly the same series under the different moniker. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kate McCarthy (footballer)Kate McCarthy – Footballer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The character's link has no information apart from the actor and year the character appeared, and the director has even less — that she directed one show which an actress appeared in. A Google search for 'Kate McCarthy Emmerdale' returns nothing related apart from WP and clones, as does one for 'Kate McCarthy director'. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 01:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KhulaKhul'' Khul (or more precisely Khulʿ, but this distinction is too technical for an article name) is the standard English spelling which corresponds to the Arabic term, as can be seen in standard references such as Brill Encyclopedia of Islam [6] and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World [7] (quote: "This form of divorce, called khulʿ...") and Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia by Routledge [8]. Khula appears to be a regional variant used mostly in South Asia. Eperoton (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Gryf (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nasrani (disambiguation)Nasrani – Up until the ISIL painting of Arabic "N" ن for "Nasrani" over the Christian gateposts of Mosul in 2014 it's possible that the South Indian use of "Nazarene" to redirect to Kerala's Saint Thomas Christian castes really was the main use in English sources. But that isn't the case since 2014, as Nasrani is now overwhelmingly known in the western media for its original meaning; the Quranic term for Arab Christians. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sarasadat KhademalshariehSara Khadem – Since there is some dispute about this, we should get it settled by a formal move request. FIDE (the international chess federation) does use her full name, but a number of sources, including Al-Jazeera and the Guardian, call her Sara Khadem. See [9]. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cambrian LineCambrian line – Not a proper name; previous move that was thought to be uncontroversial was reverted by the procedural RM above, so let's discuss whether sources support treatment of this as a proper name or not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ashrama (stage)Ashrama – We need to revisit this, as the status quo isn't workable: The base name Ashrama redirects to this article, and has for 10 years. Base names should never redirect to a disambiguated name; the disambiguation is pointless, as anyone who clicks the base name ends up here anyway. Moreover, while there's a hat note to Ashram (disambiguation) (minus the second "a"), none of the other topics are commonly known in English as "Ashrama". Any confusion can be better sorted out with hat notes than wonky current system. Cúchullain t/c 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Malformed requests[edit]

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"


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

See also[edit]