Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

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:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move: 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 move process is not mandatory, and sometimes, an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

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.

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 request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a move discussion to determine whether or not the 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:

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 not been discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title of the page that expresses any objection to the new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, 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

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article and you want your draft article published, please submit it for review at Articles for Creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.

  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

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

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 12 December 2018" and sign the post for you.

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

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

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

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.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 12 December 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 12 December 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 12 December 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Any additional comments:

This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 12 December 2018

– why Example (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move |new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 12 December 2018

– why Example (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Commenting in a requested move

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.[a]
  • 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 *, and de-bold the struck words, 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

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. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.


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.[b] 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 discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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}} or {{Mdn}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. This is also often done (without an additional "Support" intro) to provide additional detail, such as sources, that would be unwieldy in the nomination statement (remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list at this requested moves page).
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are often relisted up to three times or almost a month.

Current discussions

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 and in table format. 65 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

December 12, 2018

December 11, 2018

  • (Discuss)Piloting (navigation)Piloting – The current situation for this page is incorrect; the unparenthesised page, Piloting, is a redirect to this page. I can envisage 3 possible scenarios to fix this issue, I believe a discussion is warranted to determine the best course. The options I can see are: *Piloting (navigation) is the primary topic. Move it to Piloting per this request with a hatnote linking to Pilot (disambiguation) (I already placed the hatnote). Although this requires an administrator, I think this is the most straightforward course and effectively maintains the status quo. It does rely on this page being the primary topic, hence the move request to discuss this. *Another article is the primary topic for "Piloting". I don't see this being the case, but if so we need to modify Piloting to point there and place a hatnote there. * There is no primary topic. In this case Piloting should be a disambiguation page or a link to one. We need to decide whether having a separate disambiguation page or whether simply reverting the link to Pilot is the correct action MegaSloth (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Former Central Police Station CompoundTai Kwun – Per WP:COMMONNAME. These sites are few of Hong Kong's heritage conservation notable projects, which consists of different renovation works and renaming. These two are revitalized as a cultural and heritage hub and heritage hotel with food and beverage outlets and retail facilities respectively. I believe that the common name for these locations is mainly the new name. And this is not new, heritage conservation projects articles like PMQ have been using its new site name rather than the heritage building name. I hope to have everyone's input so that to make sure I didn't miss out any policies. There might be some other sites required for renaming per consistency, please list it out as well. Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)$ (film)Dollars (film) – Per WP:MOSTM. Not without precedent per [1] and this DVD release. Per the AFI: "Some contemporary sources listed the film's title as $ (Dollars), while others listed it Dollars, and the British release title was The Heist." --woodensuperman 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Highway of Tears murdersHighway of Tears cases – Not all Highway of Tears cases are murders as the current title could suggest; however "Highway of Tears Murdered and Missing", although accurate, is cludgy and not as streamlined as "Highway of Tears cases". Nfox24 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 01:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10, 2018

  • (Discuss)Citrus australasica → ? – The finger lime is now in more common use and has an English name Finger Lime (fruit). Request moving page so that title can be found in English ('Use commonly recognizable names', Wikipedia uses the example guinea pig vs cavia porcellus. AustralianVoice (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 9, 2018

  • (Discuss)Singer Presents...ElvisElvis (1968 TV program) – This request is to undo an undiscussed move and reinstate the long-standing title of this article, which was used from July 2009 to Jan 2018. This special has come to be informally and inconstently known by several other names such as "Elvis Presley's '68 Comeback Special", "Elvis NBC TV Special", and other variations, but the title at the time was simply "Elvis" under the "Singer Presents..." sponsor umbrella title used for a series of specials around that time. This move provides the least confusing title option. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Formula OneFormula 1 – PM here, I've been looking over the various sources that we use in articles and once again I find myself wondering whether "Formula One" or "Formula 1" is the best title to use. The only source I can find that consistently uses "Formula One" is the FIA website, for things such as entry lists and official documentation. While FIA sources are important because they're generally definitive, WP:COMMONNAME argues that article titles should use the name most commonly presented in third-party sources. Autosport uses "Formula 1", as does Speedcafe and, three of the major sources that we use. Looking at the reference list for the 2018 championship article (currently semi-protected, so I cannot get the URLs),, Sky Sports, the BBC, ESPN and Autoweek all use "Formula 1". It's common to every major source that we use. In addition—and this is more of a supplementary point—the support "formula" categories all use numbers rather than words: Formula 2, Formula 3 and Formula 4. So I think "Formula 1" is much more representative for the championship than "Formula (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhkohh (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)G GuruswamyG. Guruswamy – Abbreviations of names usually have a dot. Eg: George Herbert Walker Bush as George H. W. Bush ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 06:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Aztec calendar stoneAztec sun stone – This article should never have been moved to the current title 'Aztec calendar stone', this has not been the accepted name of the stone for many years at this point, its generally accepted name is 'Aztec sun stone', this is what it's called by those who study the field, as well as its name in the museum which houses it in Mexico. Although it is still fairly common to refer to the stone incorrectly as a calendar, the name 'Aztec calendar stone' is not common, most people would not know what the title is. Even if it were the most common title, an encyclopedia's job is to present correct information, not to reinforce incorrect misconceptions. For example, the most common name for the UK is 'England' or sometimes 'Britain', both of these names are incorrect, therefore the Wikipedia article is titled 'United Kingdom', the more correct, but less common title. Furthermore, the previous discussion on this topic only had one detailed comment, one which was opposed to the move, despite bizarrely being marked 'support', this was perhaps due to an error by the person making the comment. There has since been two commenters on this page disagreeing with the title, suggesting a consensus has emerged against the move. (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 8, 2018

  • (Discuss)Emu's TV Series → ? – No idea what to move this to – I just know that the current title is incorrect. As the article seems to cover multiple television series, perhaps it should be moved to Emu (franchise)? Or if it's decided that the article is really about the puppet "character", perhaps Emu (character)?... --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Genesis RodriguezGenesis Rodríguez – It is true that when people are born in the United States, their names do not have an accent. And it is understandable, but the surname is that of the father, and he was born in Venezuela. Therefore, the surname must go with an accent. Philip J Fry (talk) (cont) 06:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sapporo BrewerySapporo Holdings – The current title of this article is "Sapporo Brewery", which is not actually the name of any business – the correct title is "Sapporo Breweries". However, it seems from Sapporo Holdings's website that Sapporo Breweries Ltd is a subsidiary company that only operates in Japan. In the rest of the world, Sapporo beer is produced and sold by Sapporo International Inc. and/or its subsidiaries (e.g. Sapporo U.S.A.). Because this article includes information about international sales/manufacture of Sapporo, I think it makes more sense for the article to be about Sapporo Holdings, the company that owns both the Japan company and the international company. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marshall TaylorMajor Taylor – As the velodrome, boulevard, society and association commemorating him all use the name "Major Taylor", this appears to be his WP:COMMONNAME by which the article should be titled. But I'm not a cycling expert, nor an American, so I await the comments of other editors. PamD 14:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 7, 2018

  • (Discuss)Brodmann area 44Opercular part of inferior frontal gyrus – Proper name for that part of the surface anatomy of the brain; use of Brodmann area adds a confusing mix of cytoarchitecture; in line with Orbital part of inferior frontal gyrus and other descriptive anatomic terms such as Angular gyrus is used and a separate entry for Brodmann area 39 is also used; same for primary motor cortex and separate page for Brodmann area 4; again Supramarginal gyrus and separate page BA 40, and so on. These are informative terms to a reader, unlike sole use of BA numbers; any neuroanatomy book shows descriptive terms on brain diagrams unless specifiying cytoarchitecture. Iztwoz (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kama SutraKamasutra – Should this article's page be retitled to Kamasutra or left as it is? Here are some background info and stats: *Richard Burton's 1883 translation termed it Kama Sutra. Its copyright has long since expired, and the print is available from many publishers. If you do a Google Books search, Burton's translation appears numerous times, published by sources such as Books on Demand,, Panther Books, Harry N. Abrams, Courier, Chipmunka Publishing, WingSpan Publishing, etc... these are really not distinct search results. *If you do a more careful search among WP:RS, both "Kama Sutra" and "Kamasutra" are found as one would expect. The former, in reference to Burton's translation or secondary works based on the 1883 edition in particular, but sometimes outside of that context as well (e.g. by Danielou). The title Kamasutra is common in scholarly WP:RS discussion of the Vatsyayana's work. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Comments welcome. I am fine with whatever the consensus emerges, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saint Nicholas DaySaint Nicholas's Day – I moved to the location that basic English grammar would dictate, and had considerable support for it at WP:ERRORS when trying to avoid such a blatant display of illiteracy appearing on the front page of the project in a featured position, but despite the clear consensus gathered, an admin on Main Page reverted to make it look to the world as though Wikipedia is operated by those who cannot cope with primary school English. So we have to use this mechanism to avoid presenting ourselves as idiots. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)James VI and IJames I and VI – I suggest the article should be re-named "James I and VI", as the greater title is that of the greater kingdom, namely England Great Britain, by population size, world power, prestige, etc. This is the usual way titles are shown for nobility, i.e., a baron who is created an earl, becomes known by his greater title (earl) first, with lesser titles following.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Making Fiends (web cartoon)Making Fiends (web series) – The current disambiguation used here, "(web cartoon)", is non-standard ("web cartoon" is not a term used much of anywhere, so it shouldn't be used for disambiguation purposes). This should be at "(web series)", the standard disambiguation used in cases like these. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bhaktabar Singh ThapaBakhtawar Singh Thapa – The name is transliteration mistake. It's "बख्तावर सिंह" in Nepali whose near Devanagari transliteration would be Bakhtawar Singh not Bhaktabar Singh. See the usage of Bakhtawar Singh Thapa in page 167 of Pradhan, Kumar L. (2012), Thapa Politics in Nepal: With Special Reference to Bhim Sen Thapa, 1806–1839, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, p. 278, ISBN 9788180698132 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Norwegian First Division1. divisjon – Norwegian First Division has never been and will never become the name of this league. Due to consistecy in naming of the world's football leagues this site should be named 1. divisjon, or at least 1. divisjon (Norwegian football). Since 1991, 1. divisjon has been the only correct name for this second tier apart from the sponsor-affiliated names (Adeccoligaen 2005–2013, OBOS-ligaen 2015–) The reason for my view is that this anglification or Englishing of 1. divisjon does not look good and examples of better naming are many; In Germany, 2. Bundesliga is not called "German Second Division", 1. delid on the Faroe Islands is not named "First Division" and Ligue 2 in France is not named "League Two". Reitimwinkl (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 08:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mottainai GrandmaMottainai Bāsan – I'm not seeing evidence that this book is actually known under its "English title" in English-speaking countries. The English title is actually that of a bilingual Japanese-English edition released in Japan and marketed to Japanese parents who want to teach their kids English, Japanese kids' eikaiwa schools, and perhaps some foreign parents stationed in Japan by their companies, etc. All the English-language secondary sources seem to be based in India and to be talking about the limited release by JICA of a Hindi edition. Additionally, comparing with the article, etc. (see above), I have some serious questions about whether this article should be overhauled to focus on the character or the series, as opposed to the original book, and none of the limited English-language sources that talk about "Mottainai Grandma" appear to be doing that. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 6, 2018

  • (Discuss)State-owned enterprises in IndonesiaState-owned enterprises of Indonesia – Initially I have moved this article from State-owned Enterprise of Indonesia to State-owned enterprises in Indonesia per WP:NCCAPS but, when I want to move back this article to State-owned enterprises of Indonesia (to meet uniform titling with other countries), it wouldn't be moved because a page of that name already exists as a redirect page. Please note that "state-owned enterprise" term is not a proper name, so it should be moved. Alqhaderi Aliffianiko (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bob Blackman (politician)Bob Blackman – 7 times as many people are looking for the politician as his namesake.[5] The dab page isn't needed - the American football coach and the costume designer can be handled with two hatnotes. Unreal7 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Viking ring fortressTrelleborg-type fortress – Or perhaps "Trelleborgs" or similar name, The concept "viking" has little to do with this subject. Norse people may have, but not "vikings". In fact, you could even argue than many if not all of these ring fortresses were erected precisely to defend against various Norse pirates - "vikings", that is - and other foreign invaders. Compare what this article is called in Scandinavian language versions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nawab of DhakaNawab Family of Dhaka – Most common term to denote the family, see its entry in Banglapedia for example. I had moved the article to the proposed title earlier as you can see in the previous discussion thread before it was moved again to 'Nawab of Dhaka'. The term Dhaka Nawab Family is also used quite often which is used in the official website of the family; in fact this was the original title of the article before somebody moved it unilaterally. The rationale given was to go with the naming format of other nawabs. However, unlike other nawabs like Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad, Nawab of Awadh etc who were basically ruling dynasties in their respective regions, Nawabs of Dhaka were mainly zamindars, hence, this article doesn't really fall in the same naming format as them. Zayeem (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Star TV (Asian TV networks)Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific – Going to do a massive edit of articles about what was originally known as STAR TV and the channels operated by it, no matter the time it takes. According to the Companies Registry in Hong Kong, the company was originally registered on 31 August 1990 as Quford Limited. It changed name to Hutchvision Channel Services Limited on 31 January 1991, and then to Satellite Television Asian Region Limited on 4 July 1991. Chinese name was later registered on 21 December 1993 as 衞星電視有限公司. After decades, the company's name was changed to Fox International Channels Asia Pacific Limited (福斯國際電視網有限公司) on 2 September 2014, and then Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific Limited (福斯傳媒有限公司) on 29 February 2016. Note that, although the company changed its trade name from STAR TV simply to Star in February 2001 (and the original full name was made redundant since then), its legal name was still Satellite Television Asian Region Limited until 2014. (It is impossible to link to an information from the Companies Registry, so you need to go to and look for Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific Limited.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

December 5, 2018

  • (Discuss)Gannett CompanyGannett Co. – Move discussion, again: sorry to rehash after just a couple of months, but I don't think Gannett Company is the correct title for this article, because there is no such entity. The name in the company's charter, which is reflected in the company's securities filings with the SEC, is Gannett Co., Inc. (i.e. abbreviated). Thus I believe it would be appropriate for us to locate this article at one of the following pages that are currently redirects: * Gannett (obviously requiring rehash of the last discussion); * Gannett Co. (to match the name absent the Inc., which follows WP naming guideline in leaving it off); or * Gannett (company) to make clear that the disambuiguator is WP-applied. but the current article title is not appropriate IMO. My preference is Gannett Co. (note we have Crane Co. and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.) Comments, reactions? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Genesis flood narrativeNoah's flood – After some extensive searching through sources, it is clear that the turn of phrase "Noah's flood" is more indicative and more widely used than "Genesis flood story", "Genesis flood myth", or "Genesis flood narrative". It is also clear from the content of this page that there is more to this topic than simply that story that is reported in the Book of Genesis as we cover the related stories from Islam and Yazidi. Per WP:NPOVTITLE, we should go with the more common name which would be recognizable to members of the Islamic and Yazidi faith (both of whom would object to the Genesis story as being the most faithful telling of Noah's flood). jps (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KeyArenaSeattle Center Arena – This is a contested request.[14] Apparently with the recent announcement that the new Seattle NHL team will be set to play in a few years, this arena is being renamed as "Seattle Center Arena" (the arena's official website has even been updated as such to point to a new name, But as of now, this article has yet to be updated with any content related to this new name, much less news sources for WP:COMMONAME purposes. The other issue is that the Seattle Center Arena redirect use to point to Mercer Arena.[15] So the question now, should the page be moved or keep the disambiguation page for now. I am neutral in this discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The MaritimesMaritimes – Per WP:THE, we should only include "The" in the name if one of the two conditions are met: (1) If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, and (2) If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text. (1) is not met because there is no other major meaning of "Maritimes", and Maritimes has always redirected to The Martimes. And (2) from a search for "the maritimes is" and [a search for "the maritimes are" (search terms designed to analyse usage in running text), we see that virtually no websites capitalise "the". Note: I initially moved this in August, because the evidence seems strong enough to make this uncontroversial. But it was then reverted this morning by Kenwick, and [ reaffirmed at the old title by BilCat, so here we are discussing it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Calidum 04:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:Infobox eSports playerTemplate:Infobox video game player – A) Removes the reliance on the "esports" verbiage. (c.f. WP:ESPORTS now.) B) Perhaps a marginally better reason is that "video game player" is preferred by WP:NCVG for naming disambiguation; I think it reasonable to avoid the possible jargon in the context of the template name as well as provide for a somewhat congruous name of the template. Izno (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Calidum 04:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Giant Robo (OVA)Giant Robo (video series) – Before going forward with an WP:RfC on how to properly disambiguate these anime "original video animation" (or "OVA") series, I'd like to run a test-case or two through WP:RM to see if we can come to a consensus on a naming scheme for these first. Based on the discussion at Talk:JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (2012 TV series)#Requested move 17 November 2018, it seems like there may be some support for disambiguating these by either "(video series)" or "(film series)". No matter what, "OVA" is insufficient disambiguation as it does not distinguish the "one-off" OVA titles (which should simply be disambiguated with "(film)", as all direct-to-video film titles are, under WP:NCFILM) from the true OVA "series" titles such as Giant Robo here. If we can come up with a consensus on how to name this one, we may be making progress on this issue... --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NTS Sessions 1-4NTS Sessions 1–4 – Current title incorrectly uses a hyphen (-) in a numerical range instead of an en dash (–). The correct title has already been created as a redirect, but the article should be placed on the page with the correct title. —BLZ · talk 23:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Stokes' theoremStokes's theorem – The choice should be guided by the Wikipedia MOS (manual of style). MOS:POSS is fairly clear on the choice of 's for singular possessives. A possible appeal to WP:COMMONNAME is inappropriate here: "common name" is not the same as "common spelling". In this case specifically, no one argues that it should be called anything else but Stokes's theorem (i.e. a "theorem by Stokes", where Stokes is used in its singular-noun possessive form) as opposed to "Stokes theorem" (where Stokes is in attributive use). The only contention is how to spell a singular possessive. Using either Stokes' or Stokes's in this case is not a violation of "common name" policy – and therefore the choice is guided by MOS:POSS instead. It's been discussed twice on the Talk page: see two "Spelling" sections. The first discussion resulted in a move – which was later reverted without a further discussion. And the second discussion has ended without any strong arguments against renaming (i.e. the arguments that weren't refuted by referencing appropriate Wikipedia policies on spelling and style). cherkash (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ponderosa Steakhouse and Bonanza SteakhousePonderosa Steakhouse – None of the establishments in this chain are/were named "Ponderosa Steakhouse and Bonanza Steakhouse". Each is branded either "Ponderosa Steakhouse" or "Bonanza Steakhouse", but never both nor any combination of the two names. Per WP:CONCISE, either name would be a preferable title to the combined title (with the other as a redirect, naturally). As for which brand to choose as the title, there are currently Bonanza restaurants only within the United States while there are also Ponderosa restaurants in Puerto Rico, the Middle East, and Taiwan. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RivalRival (disambiguation) – An article on Rivalry has just been completed and moved to mainspace, and this new article should be the clear primary topic of this term and variations (rivals, rivalrous). Move this disambiguation page to the disambiguation title to redirect the term to the primary topic. bd2412 T 21:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Health careHealthcare – The terms Health Care and Healthcare are used interchangeably with no obvious logical or regional pattern. Consistency would be helpful, especially in the categorisation system. We could then get rid of foolishness like this: *All pages beginning with health care *All pages beginning with healthcare *Article titles containing "health care" or "healthcare" Rathfelder (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Weston-super-Mare MuseumWeston Museum – Please could I have the page 'Weston-super-Mare Museum' moved to 'Weston Museum' in order to reflect the Weston-super-Mare museum's present and correct name. It is no longer called 'Weston-super-Mare Museum', as was noted in an earlier Talk comment by user Rodw. I am also planning to publish a substantial update to 'W-s-M Museum' in the near future (several thousand characters) and would like to make it the primary topic for the term 'Weston Museum' The English museum of this name already receives more monthly pageviews than the New Jersey namesake according to I am hoping to further encourage more views from interested local residents following the publication of my re-write. A work-in-progress draft of my re-write can be seen at User:JonSC/sandbox/Weston-super-Mare_Museum. Thank you! JonSC (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Princess EugeniePrincess Eugenie of York – There is, as yet, no reason to suppose her title has changed following her marriage. * Googling "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" only brings up press speculation as to what her title would be after marrying. This was a reasonable enough prediction, given the examples of Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips in 1973 and Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs Angus Ogilvy in 1963. However, the form "Mrs [Husband's Christian name] [Husband's surname]" is very old-fashioned these days, and many women choose not to adopt their husband's name at all. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence that Princess Eugenie has done so. When a woman does not adopt a married name, she keeps her maiden name, in this case "Princess Eugenie of York". * Some contributors seem to be of the impression that "of York" should be removed purely because she is married: User:Keivan.f asserted on this talk page that "the territorial designation gets dropped once a woman from the royal family gets married", and User:Timrollpickering moved the article to its current title on the grounds that she "drops house on marriage". Where has this idea come from? There have only been two previous instances when a daughter of a younger son of the Sovereign has married a man who did not already have a royal or noble title: when Princess Patricia of Connaught married the Hon. Alexander Ramsay in 1919, and when Princess Alexandra of Kent married the Hon. Angus Ogilvy in 1963. In the first case, Princess Patricia dropped her royal style altogether and became "Lady Patricia Ramsay" by royal warrant ("No. 31203". The London Gazette. 26 February 1919. p. 2819.). In the second, Princess Alexandra became "Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Mrs Angus Ogilvy" as noted above ("The Hon. Lady Ogilvy" after he was knighted in 1997). Even if there had been any consistency in these cases (and there is not), to try and extrapolate a precedent to be applied to Princess Eugenie would be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And on both occasions, the only need for a change was because they were adopting their husband's name, which Princess Eugenie appears not to have done, v.s. * Most tellingly, "Princess Eugenie of York" is the style that continues to be used on the official website of the royal family. The release of the wedding photographs on 13 October (the day after the wedding) reads "Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack Brooksbank have released four official photographs from their Wedding day." Compare the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex, who have been styled as such in all communications ever since they walked out of the church. And in the published order of succession, no. 9 is still "Princess Eugenie of York". * The proposed title maintains WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles in Category:British princesses. Opera hat (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Big Run, Jefferson County, PennsylvaniaBig Run, Pennsylvania – Move over existing unpopulated disambiguation page. Standard naming convention for US place name. Dab page lists two other "Big Run"s in Pennsylvania (without articles), one of which only has seven structures, and the other of which only has 30. The incorporated borough of Big Run in Jefferson County is clearly the primary topic. Ken Gallager (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 16:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


See also