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 moves 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 consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion 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:

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 discussion (especially no recent 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 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 move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the top of the list, 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 ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • 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

Oppose, Known as Siegbert Prawer in Gbook biographical contexts, and that appears to be WP:COMMONNAME per normal bio practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Undiscussed primary topic swap, see revert request below. 162 etc. (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • 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. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 18 May 2021" and sign the post for you.

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 Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

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).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

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 18 May 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (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 18 May 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (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 18 May 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection 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 18 May 2021

– why Example (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (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 18 May 2021

– why Example (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes 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, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with 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 using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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 requested move

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 automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' 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 by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

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. 43 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

May 18, 2021

  • (Discuss)Job designWork design – Wikipedia's precision convention states that a title should "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." Several prominent authors in the subject field have argued that "job design" is too narrow of a term and have opted for for term "work design" instead, as it acknowledges both the job (i.e. an employees' prescribed technical tasks) as well as employee engagement in emergent, social, and self-initiated activities within flexible roles (see Parker, 2004; Parker & Wall, 1998; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Literature written in the last 2 decades rarely refers to the topic as "job design" for this reason. As "job design" could be considered a lower-order component of "work design", I would argue that the less precise, broader term should be used as the article title. Regardless, a terminology/usage section could be written to clear up distinctions between work/job/task design for readers. Fowira (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Choi Yeon-sungiloveoov – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Last move rationale was speculative, at best, and the support vote "more encyclopedic" is not a policy. *Google search results for "Choi Yeon-sung" starcraft: 3,030 results *Google search results for iloveoov starcraft: 27,100 results. In regards to news articles: *Google news search results for "Choi Yeon-sung" starcraft: 2 results *Google news search results for iloveoov starcraft: 248 results. Pbrks (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Williamstown LighthouseWilliamstown Timeball Tower – The website listed under the reference section uses 'Williamstown Timeball Tower' as its name. Locals (including the Local Council) know it as the 'Timeball Tower' (which is what it has been preserved as), and would remove any confusion with the 'Point Gellibrand Pile Light'. Also a google search of 'Williamstown Lighthouse' returns more results as 'Timeball Tower' than 'Lighthouse' Trainsofvictoria (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ICC Test ChampionshipICC Men's Test Team Rankings – ICC Test Championship was replaced by ICC World Test Championship so the former title no longer exists. The photo of the Test mace (previously awarded to the top ranked test team) was attached to the ICC article about WTC on 2018, including an official ICC tweet which clearly distinguishes between the names Team Rankings and Championship. The ICC Test Championship refers to the Test mace, not the team rankings.[3] Selva15469 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Selva15469 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marex SpectronMarex – Marex Spectron is now operating and trading under the brand Marex. The website for Marex Spectrum now redirects to Marex, therefore the page title should be changed to reflect the new situation. the Marex page is being used to forward to the unrelated Terbutaline page and we request priority to use this page BCOMMS107 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bathory CaveBátori Cave – Official name of the cave, based on the Home Page of the Official Nature Conservation in Hungary, which register natural sites throughout the country. Majority of the sources also use Bátori name with alternative forms (Báthory, Báthori, Hárs-hegy etc.). The cave is named after 15th-century hermit László Báthory, whose, however, it is the best-known name form, instead of Bátori. Norden1990 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hulaulá languageTrans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic – This is the most common way of referring to the language in reliable sources; as noted here the terms are synonymous ("Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic, also known as Hulaulá “Judaism,” across the Lesser Zab in Iranian Kurdistan"). There are only 19 Google Scholar results for Hulaulá as an Aramaic language[3] but 80[4] for Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May 17, 2021

  • (Discuss)Mohamed BambaMo Bamba – Common name for an established NBA player is a hypocorism, not generally known by full name - cf,, which should be authoritative (note URL uses Mohamed but display text is Mo, ESPN is both Mo). Song is named after the person, and was successful single but not on equal footing with current ongoing professional athlete to need a disambiguation page, just a hatnote should do. JesseRafe (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zeugma (disambiguation)ZeugmaZeugma currently redirects to Zeugma and syllepsis, but I don't think that article is a primary topic over Zeugma (Commagene). Looking at the pageviews (Zeugma and syllepsis, Zeugma (Commagene)), the ratio between the two normally fluctuates between 4:1 and 2:1 in favour of Zeugma and syllepsis, which I don't think is enough; and right now, Zeugma (Commagene) has far more pageviews than the other, because it's in the news. This is of course temporary, but it will most likely happen again in the future if/when another mosaic is uncovered there. In conclusion, no primary topic, so Zeugma should be the disambiguation page. Lennart97 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

May 16, 2021

  • (Discuss)BakhdidaQaraqosh – Clear common name in reliable sources.
    Google Scholar for all the alternative names listed in the article: *722 results for "Qaraqosh" *253 for "Al-Hamdaniya" *72 for "Bakhdida" *39 for "Qara Qosh" *24 for "Baghdeda" NGRAMS results overwhelmingly favor Qaraqosh [9]
    There's no other place or topic called Qaraqosh, which redirects to this article (t · c) buidhe 16:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Liberation of KhorramshahrBattle of Khorramshahr (1982) – This new title scheme would disambiguate between two battles in the same city during the Iran-Iraq war. The term "liberation" is inherently POV and should be avoided because it favors one side of the war. I can't establish that it's consistently used in reliable sources in a similar way to Boston Massacre; many sources resulting from searching "battle of Khorramshahr" on google scholar clearly refer to the 1982 battle. As noted above there are concerns about the POV of this article and use of "liberation" in the title feeds into them. The terms "capture" and "recapture" for 1980 and 1982 respectively are also neutral and used in reliable sources, but "battle" is more common. Ping Cuatito who expressed an opinion above (t · c) buidhe 16:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SpaceX South Texas launch siteStarbase – SpaceX put up a large sign with text "STARBASE" today, so presumably Starbase is the common name of the site now. Want to assess community opinion on whether we should rename this article to "Starbase". osunpokeh (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dáil ÉireannDáil – *This is the only topic that's called "Dáil" in English-language reliable sources, as you can tell from the Google Scholar results, and therefore is WP:PRECISE. *It satisfies recognizability as it's the WP:COMMONNAME of this institution, which throughout its history has been much more commonly referred to as the "Dáil" or "Dail"[12] *It is also more WP:CONCISE than using the full official name. *A similar discussion resulted in renaming the Welsh parliament to Senedd. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cash for curtains disputed allegations → ? – The article was moved from 'Cash-for-Curtains Scandal' to 'Cash for curtains disputed allegations' because there is "no evidence or RS support for that name". It seems to me that Cash for curtains disputed allegations is the worst of both worlds. I propose it either moves to 'Cash-for-Curtains Scandal' or some variation thereof, or moves to '11 Downing Street refurbishment dispute'. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

May 15, 2021

  • (Discuss)Medina AzaharaMadinat al-Zahra – After reviewing a lot of sources during the expansion of this page, I think it would be good to have editors reconsider the exact page title. In particular, the current page title Medina Azahara is the common Spanish name of the site, but the common rendition Madinat al-Zahra is probably preferable for the following reasons: 1) The archeological site's official name, even in Spanish, is Madinat al-Zahra, as seen on its official site. 2) "Madinat al-Zahra" reflects standard Arabic romanization, at least in English. It therefore also reflects the historical Arabic name more accurately for English readers. Whereas using the Spanish rendition of it here is arguably a little confusing or anachronistic, especially when discussing the city's history, since the city was built and destroyed long before the region became Spain (unlike, by contrast, the Alhambra, which has a long history after 1492 under that exact name in both Spanish and English). 3) More importantly, the majority of accessible English-language reliable sources (i.e. sources by scholars, museum catalogues, etc) clearly seem to use "Madinat al-Zahra", and usage in such sources is the primary criteria cited by WP:COMMONNAME. Here are examples, including some major authoritative sources: * Publications by Antonio Vallejo Triano (the lead archeologist of the site between 1985 and 2013) in English books in 1992 (available here) and in 2007 (preview here), as well as in his Spanish publications (e.g. 1995, "Madīnāt al-Zahrā’. El Salón de Abd al-Raḥmān III" and 2010, "La ciudad califal de Madīnat al-Zahrā’. Arqueología de su excavación"). * The official guidebook of the site (also written or edited by Vallejo Triano) published in 2005, "Madinat Al-Zahra: Official Guide to the Archeological Complex" (Google Books page here) * Jonathan Bloom's recent (2020) English-language introduction to the history of Islamic architecture in the region: "Architecture of the Islamic West: North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, 700-1800" (preview here; see page 51 and after) * Barrucand and Bednorz's introduction on Moorish architecture in Spain: 1992, "Moorish Architecture in Andalusia" (pdf available here, see page 61). * Publications by D. Fairchild Ruggles , a well-known author on the history of Islamic gardens: see 2000, "Gardens, Landscape, and Vision in the Palaces of Islamic Spain" (preview here, see page 53 or after) and 2011, "Islamic Gardens and Landscapes" (preview here, see around pages 18, 45, or 152) * The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, published by Oxford, relevant entry here * Encyclopedia Britannica entry * Encyclopedia of Islam (Third edition), published by Brill, in multiple entries such as this one * Museum With No Frontiers, relevant page here * Felix Arnold's overview of western Islamic palaces, although it's more technical and uses the narrower Arabic transliteration "az-Zahra" instead of "al-Zahra": 2018, "Islamic Palace Architecture in the Western Mediterranean: A History" (Google preview here, see page 60) To be clear, "Medina Azahara" is still used in a fair amount of tourism information (e.g. 1 or 2) and it is used in its UNESCO designation, so I am not opposed to keeping it as is, but it does seem like the weight of reliable sources (and the site's official name) is more consistent with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cook stoveImproved cookstove – This article currently covers 1) The problems associated with traditional cookstoves and open fires, 2) A type of cooking technology that is widely referred to as an "improved cookstove", 3) Briefer coverage of some other types of cooking technologies such as solar cookers, and 4) Issues with implementing cleaner cooking solutions. We now have an article called Energy poverty and cooking that also covers #1, #3, and #4, and puts all types of solutions into the context of clean cooking strategies. After the move, I would like to transfer some content to the Energy poverty and cooking article so that the Improved cookstove article focuses only on improved cookstoves, their health effects, and their implementation issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anfal genocideAnfal campaign – This name is much more common in reliable sources, for instance see NGRAMS[13] Google Scholar results as follows: *"Anfal campaign" 2,500 *"Al-Anfal campaign" 381 *"Anfal genocide" 292 *"Al-Anfal genocide" 29 It is unlikely that there could be separate articles Anfal campaign and Anfal genocide, as the campaign was conducted in such a brutal way that many reliable sources consider it to be genocidal. However, "Anfal genocide" is definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME and should not be the article title. (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Deutsch-Französische GymnasiumDeutsch-Französisches Gymnasium – The current title is either not in WP:SINGULAR or grammatically incorrect. This article is about a form of school that mixes the German and French system. There seems to be no English name for this type of school in online sources. It may be controversial to use only the German name. I don't know what the creator's rationale was, perhaps that the first DFG/LFA was founded in Saarbrücken, Germany. I'm fine with either or both languages. ⠀Trimton⠀ 17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MolodohvardiyskMolodohvardiisk – Per WP:UKR, official place name, and official romanization. It doesn’t have a well-established English spelling (WP:COMMONNAME) in reliable sources. This also helps WP:CONSISTENCY, because almost every Ukrainian place article can be located by its official romanization. The current title’s spelling corresponds to the BGN/PCGN 1965 romanization system, which was superseded by adoption of the Ukrainian National system in 2019. The proposed spelling corresponds to the Ukrainian National system, and to both the ALA-LC and British Standard systems without diacritics and apostrophes. In searches per WP:SET: * Books: 0 to 32 results (most or all are from before the last revision of the current official romanization system in 2010) * Scholar: 1 to 1 result * News: 1 to 1  —Michael Z. 16:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rio Grande ValleyRio Grande Valley (Texas) – * * Disambiguate between Rio Grande Valley (New Mexico). As quoted before:

    "The name seems too general to be about one specific region of the Rio Grande Valley. I understand many people in that specific region calls it by this name, but I have lived all up and down this river as far south as El Paso, and literally everyone, everywhere in the settlements along the river in the US call their stretch the "Rio Grande Valley". It is used by locals, companies, even in local news1234. But very few valley dwellers outside this specific region and adjacent ones, other than the AP, have ever thought it would refer to the region specified in this article. The namespace Rio Grande Valley would serve far more to the average reader if it links to, or better yet, replaces the disambiguation page instead, as it does indeed give the impression that this is the only place to use this name for the river valley when it isn't."

    Indeed, several pages erroneously link to this article when referencing other areas of the actual valley. Kehkou (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)IPad Air (2019)IPad Air (3rd generation) – In order to fit in with the rest of the articles; to comply with the official name; and because the yearly designation doesn't provide more recognisability. Target is blocked because of a previous invalid copy/paste move attempt Andibrema (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DHSC (football club)VV DHSC – The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands. VV DHSC is also official. See club's website. gidonb (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

May 14, 2021

  • (Discuss)Queenie O'RourkeJimmy O'Rourke (baseball) – Per the SABR biography on the baseball player, son of Orator Jim, footnote #3 says Throughout his 13-year career as a major- and minor-league ballplayer, James Stephen O’Rourke was known as Jimmy. The putative nickname Queenie did not appear in newsprint during O’Rourke’s lifetime. Rather, it debuted some months after his death in December 1955 in the second edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Baseball by Hy Turkin and S.C. Thompson. Like other biographical data published in T&T, the provenance of this heretofore unknown O’Rourke nickname was not provided, and has proved untraceable. Notwithstanding that, Queenie O’Rourke was adopted as our subject’s name by ensuing baseball reference works and remains in use today. The effort to extirpate this fictitious appellation from current authority is ongoing at this writing. I endorse this effort. shows 31 hits for "Queenie O'Rourke", none of them before his death (I'm unclear on this, but three of them may be from users clipping articles and calling him "Queenie", though the articles themselves don't use the nickname). His obit does not refer to him as "Queenie". It's not his WP:COMMONNAME. The page Jimmy O'Rourke should be a redirect to the dab page James O'Rourke. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Judaeo-SpanishLadino language – The name "Judeao-Spanish" is not the most common way to refer to this language. I suspect it's the primary topic of "Ladino", but adding "language" is often done for consistency. Google Scholar results as follows (since 2020, since there are a lot of results, but there are similar results for other time windows): *Ladino language 1,000 (most of these clearly refer to the Jewish language, although there are a few extraneous results) *Judeo-Spanish 534 *Judezmo 141 *Judaeo-Spanish 92 (status quo) There is no other "Ladino language", so this (like the others) is a totally unambiguous term. Failing that, the article should be moved to the much more common spelling "Judeo-Spanish". (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pulilan Regional RoadPulilan–Calumpit Road – "Pulilan Regional Road", as per my memory, is just a conjectural name of this highway. I remember its use on Google Maps in 2012. Hence it does not conform to WP:AT. Sources from DPWH ([19] and [20]) use the name "Pulilan–Calumpit Road" as the name of this national secondary highway between Calumpit and Pulilan. It is also closer to common name per anecdotal evidences: people here refer this road as either Pulilan–Calumpit Road (or its variant Calumpit–Pulilan Road) or the generic name "National Road" or (erroneously) "Provincial Road". "Pulilan Regional Road" as a name is nonexistant in reliable sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Odilo GlobočnikOdilo Globocnik – Overwhelming common name in English. Check Google Scholar, NGRAMS, etc. virtually all English language sources spell it without the diacritic. Suggested on my user talk by Ermenrich (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

May 13, 2021

  • (Discuss)MS AmbiencePacific Dawn – It was announced today that the ship so far best known as Pacific Dawn has been bought for a new cruise company Ambassador Cruises, which intends to rename her Ambience, with business to open in June 2021 for cruises commencing in April 2022. In terms of WP policy, at present it fails the basic naming principle of WP:COMMONNAME, and the additional guidance at WP:SHIPNAME. So far there are no sources found to support even that the change of name of the ship has happened, so it cannot satisfy WP:NAMECHANGES. At some time in the future the ship may become better-known in service as Ambience than Pacific Dawn, but at the moment that is speculative; new plans for the future are appropriately covered under the former article title Pacific Dawn, consistently with WP:CRYSTALBALL. Davidships (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fez, MoroccoFez – Requesting change with regards to "Morocco" as disambiguation in the title. (I know another RM closed recently but since that didn't pass, this second issue can be addressed independently of the spelling.) The choice of disambiguation here is a little unusual as it implies that this is either the secondary topic in relation to Fez (the hat) or that there are other major cities named "Fez" (which there aren't). The original move from "Fes" to "Fez, Morocco" was presumably the simplest option because the Fez page already existed by then, but I don't believe it's the best lasting solution for the encyclopedia. The primary topic should be the other way around: *The "fez" is a hat that is no longer widely used today (for most English readers it's mainly a novelty) and that is directly named after the city (easy to verify from sources in the relevant article or elsewhere). The city, by comparison, is one of Morocco's largest cities, a major historic capital and cultural center for the region for over a thousand years, and a major tourist destination today (again easy to verify with sources on this page or related topics). So, especially with regard to "long-term significance", it's a more intuitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. *The proposed change is also in line with a comparable disambiguation like "Casablanca": Casablanca directs to the city, while the movie, which is actually better-known to many English readers and gets more page visits, is disambiguated as Casablanca (film); not the other way around. *For what it's worth, web searches are not very reliable clues due to the multiple names of either topic, competing pop culture topics of the same name, and the effect of Wikipedia itself, but a search of the name "Fez" by itself in Google Books and Google Scholar, which is a little more indicative of reliable sources (as per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY), presents results primarily about the city first. Likewise, a search in university libraries typically yields results primarily about the city; e.g. Oxford or Harvard. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)First IntifadaFirst Palestinian Intifada – Rename per WP:CONCISE there have been multiple events named Intifada in the Arab World over the past century. Specifically, the first events named Intifada were the 1952 Egyptian revolution and parallel Iraqi Intifada (1952). Later those were followed by Bahraini March Intifada in 1960s, the Sahrawi Zemla Intifada in 1970s, LEbanese February 6 Intifada in early 1980s (all being essentially "First Intifada"s) and only later in 1987 was the first Palestinian Intifada. Some sources which utilize the term "First Intifada" deal specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian event in retrospective and hence drop "Palestinian" from the term, while during the event itself it was rather branded "the Palestinian Intifada", the the "87 Intifada" - same as sources dealing with World War I referred to it as "the World War". It is certainly not the "First Intifada", but rather only in the Palestinian context. GreyShark (dibra) 09:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Al-Aqsa IntifadaSecond Intifada – clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. This article was moved from Second Intifada in a 2019 requested move. There, Greyshark09 argued that the current title is "the most common name in international high-quality sources", and linked a BBC article, Al Jazeera article and JSTOR article. The page was moved after nobody else commented. The opposite is true: Second Intifada is the far more common name. A Google search turns up 3,830,000 results for "Second Intifada" and 721,000 results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada". Likewise, the Books Ngram Viewer shows that Second Intifada is roughly six times more common in published English-language books, and since 2005 usage has clearly settled more heavily in favour Second Intifada (the BBC article Greyshark pointed to was from 2004). Within academia, JSTOR returns 11,481 results for "Second Intifada" and 2,705 results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada". I'm unconvinced by the argument that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is used by a higher quality of sources: The Guardian has 654 results for Second Intifada vs 96 results. Both Foreign Policy and BBC, which were quoted by Greyshark, use Second Intifada more frequently. (Foreign Policy 154 mentions vs. 12 mentions; BBC 20 pages of results vs. 3 pages, mostly from 2005 or prior). Second Intifada is also more easily recognisable for readers unfamiliar with the topic, as a chronological successor to the First Intifada. Jr8825Talk 07:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BullockornisDromornis planei – name change accepted by authorities, uncontroversial move in that sense, however, this page is also being proposed for merging. I don't see it affecting the merge discussion which title it is under. ~ cygnis insignis 17:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Renee YoungRenee Paquette – Since leaving WWE in August 2020, she has been using her real name "Renee Paquette" instead of "Renee Young". The name change has been reflected on all her social media accounts and in reliable sources. Renee Paquette is the author of her upcoming cookbook and hosts her own podcast titled with her own name. WP:NAMECHANGES - Originalchampion (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

May 12, 2021

  • (Discuss)Army 2020Army 2020 British Army reorganization – the existing name is too non-informative, too nebulous and too generic. the name of the entry should offer some idea of its actual topic The existing name, "Army 2020," does not convey any such meaning. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bosnia (region)Bosnia – The currently redirect term Bosnia used to redirect to the sovereign country of Bosnia and Herzegovina but was changed quite recently. I propose to remove the "(region)" part of the name as there are no other articles that are named just "Bosnia". For arguments in bringing back the redirect to the sovereign country, my response is that referring to the compound name of the country as just "Bosnia" is like saying "England" to refer to the United Kingdom" or "Soviet Russia" to refer to the whole country of the Soviet Union. PyroFloe (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eric Martin (Scottish footballer)Eric Martin (footballer) – Hello. So I wanted to move this article to Eric Martin (footballer) because there are no other footballers called Eric Martin. However, there are two French footballers called Éric Martin. I asked User:GiantSnowman to move this page to Eric Martin (footballer), but he said that Eric Martin (footballer, born 1946) would be a potentially better move. He told me to start an RM and here I am. The question is whether we should move this page to Eric Martin (footballer) or Eric Martin (footballer, born 1946). I personally would move it to Eric Martin (footballer) because there is a clear difference in diacritic, and I left a distinguish note at the top of the three footballers, so mixing them up would not be a problem.
    I also suppose the third option is to keep the article where it is. But in that case, the Eric Martin (footballer) redirect would have to be redirect toward Eric Martin (disambiguation). Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)War in Iraq (2013–2017)Iraq–ISIL War – After researching about the war and the factions involved, I realized that this was basically mainly a war between ISIS and Iraq. We were about to move to this name previously but had to cancel it because of the apparent involvement of many other groups in the war, but as I researched the factions not a single one of them were active since the late 2000s except for a few which are the naqshbandi, FIA and 1920 brigades, whom all have just a few thousand soldiers while ISIS had 100,000-200,000+. ISIL may have had a couple allies but barely any of them posed a massive military to be considered giant enough to avoid the name “Iraq-ISIL War.” I removed every non-active faction that were involved in the info box without sources. Most importantly, when someone searched about the war on google “Iraq isis war” or something like “war isis iraq” this article doesn’t show up, which makes it obscure. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Final FRCAFellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists – I would like to propose that Primary FRCA and Final FRCA be merged and renamed to Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists. These two examinations are both part of the syllabus for the FRCA, with the primary only functioning as a stand-alone qualification if the trainee in question ceases anaesthesia training after obtaining it, at which point they are awarded Membership rather than Fellowship. In addition, both source articles are quite short and I believe would make much more sense as sections within a merged article. An alternative would be Examinations of the Royal College of Anaesthetists or similar and to then include the examinations for Fellow of the Faculty of ICM or Fellow of the Faculty of Pain Medicine. Alice Jamie (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)King Misuzulu ZuluMisuzulu kaZwelithini – The title was moved to "Prince Misuzulu Zulu" by someone and I later shifted it to "King Misuzulu Zulu". But we don't put king or prince before a name in our article titles. Can this please be moved back? We only use regnal or common names. His most commonly used name is Misuzulu Zulu. I don't know if it's his regnal name but many sources have started referring to him King Misuzulu kaZwelithini [25] [26]. This also keeps in tradition with the name of the previous kings like his father. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Voghji/Oxçu (river)Voghji (river) – Voghji is the common name of the river: It brings up 11,600 results on Google while Oxçu/Okhchu bring up 1,039; very similar results are yielded on Google Scholar. Also, the majority of the river is in Armenia's Syunik province and only a minor part is in Azerbaijan's Zangilan. The initial move of this page was very obviously politically motivated in light of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, and it simply not politically nor factually right to name this article after its uncommon appellation. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Budapest serial killingsSerial murders of Roma in Hungary (2008-2009) – The title "Budapest serial killings" is inaccurate as the murders did not take place in Budapest, the phrase is not commonly used to refer to the killings, and does not include the motive of the murders which is the ethnicity of the victims (referred to in all RS discussing this, see below). For this reason, when one googles "attacks on Roma in Hungary in 2008-2009" the page does not appear until the 3rd or 4th page of results. There is no single commonly used name describing the killings and attacks. The phrase "Hungarian Roma Murders" is used here and "murders of Roma (2008-2009) in Hungary" is used here, and "the 2009 murder of Roma people in Hungary" here However, many sources refer to the situation as a series of attacks, as in some of the attempted murders nobody was killed, and the attackers were the same individuals. Examples include "series of attacks" (BBC) (politico). As can be seen above, "common name" appears not to apply, as none exists. "Murders" is better than "attacks" as the title should reflect the seriousness of the crimes, and "murders" is commonly used in articles dedicated solely to the topic. "Hungarian Roma Murders" leaves ambiguity as to whether the Roma were the victims or the perpetrators, so "murders of Roma in Hungary" is better. The murders and attacks appear to be the work of one group, so adding the word "serial" reflects this rather than suggesting a trend among unrelated individuals. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gaza War (2008–2009)2008–2009 Gaza conflict – or 2008–2009 Gaza incursion. I see that another RM is open for Operation Guardian of the Walls2021 Gaza conflict, so it may be a good time to reconsider the "war" part of this title as well, twelve years after an RM of April 2009 when this was still very hot news. The 2008–2009 conflict hardly qualifies as a war. Per a previous remark by PlanespotterA320 and the description in the article, this was a very asymmetric conflict with only 9 deaths on the IDF side (assuming the 4 "friendly fire" casualties are included in the total of 13) and little evident organization on the other side, and it lasted only three weeks. Calling it a war gives a false impression of the nature of this incident. If this article is about a war, then it's about a war that wasn't over in January 2009. GreenC suggested two months ago that the "war" part of the title needed a separate RM, so here it is. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)YTV (Myanmar)YTV (Burmese TV network) – Per WP:NCBC. Articles about networks should use (radio network) or (TV network) to disambiguate, but a longer business name can be used for natural disambiguation if appropriate (e.g. The Sports Network rather than TSN). The addition of the country or other clarifying adjective can be used to further disambiguate. Also, Note: "Channel" in article texts and naming is largely deprecated on Wikipedia and should be reserved only for articles about a single content stream with information too extensive to be included in the primary article for the associated network – e.g. Fox Sports 2 channel, a part of Fox Sports network. I am unsure, however, if it should be "Burmese TV network" or "Myanmar TV network", which is why I am doing this instead of doing a WP:BOLD move.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chink AltermanLeonard Alterman – Leonard Alterman was primarily referred to by that name, during his time playing college and professional basketball (1941–1949). While there are instances of him being called "Chink Alterman", that name was not used nearly as often as Leonard Alterman by contemporary newspaper reports. The results of searches conducted via are listed on the Talk page. Wikipedia page "Leonard Alterman" currently exists as a redirect to "Chink Alterman". Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 11, 2021


  • (Discuss)Ofenbach (DJs)Ofenbach – Current target (a primary redirect for a very small community in Austria) barely gets any pageviews and is attracting bad links. 162 etc. (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^ "Tennessee Valley Authority". Tennessee Encyclopedia.
  5. ^ "Valley of the Dams". U.S. National Archives.
  6. ^ "NIT Puducherry". Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
  7. ^ "MHRD, National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF)". Archived from the original on 2021-01-27. Retrieved 2021-05-02.
Iambatman2022 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ed McBainEvan Hunter – Article title should be Evan Hunter, the writer's real name, under which he wrote several noteworthy books, including "Last Summer" and "The Blackboard Jungle." Ed McBain is a "pen name." Just because the name Ed McBain is, perhaps, more known than that of Evan Hunter, is weak reasoning to make it the article title. Hunter himself would probably be displeased to see his Wikipedia entry placed under a pseudonym he devised up, and just one among many. Why? Because he went through life by his legal, real name, Evan Hunter, not the pseudonym Ed McBain. If he had used the name Ed McBain in real life, the title should then be Ed McBain. But Hunter didn't do that. Evan Hunter is listed as Evan Hunter in the following: * Paperback Confidential: Crime Writers of the Paperback Era by Brian Ritt (Eureka, CA: Starke House Press, 2013) * Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature (index says McBain, Ed see Evan Hunter) * A Checklist of Evan Hunter by Christopher P. Stephens (Ultramarine, 1992) * Let's Talk: A Story of Cancer and Love by Evan Hunter a.k.a. Ed McBain (Orion Publishing Co., 2005) * Ed McBain/Evan Hunter: A Literary Companion by Erin E. MacDonald (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2012) * * SFE: The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction * "Evan Hunter, Writer Who Created Police Procedural, Dies at 78" NYT Obit, July 7, 2005 Of importance is the last in the list above — the New York Times obituary, virtually an official record. The obit was for Evan Hunter, not Ed McBain, the pen name. TheGrayLion (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Oromia RegionOromia region – Sources don't cap region (see news). Alternatively, if users prefer a proper-name title, then "Oromia Regional State" is a possibility; or "State of Oromia" as in the constitution. Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Simca-Talbot HorizonChrysler Simca Horizon – The car was originally introduced as the Chrysler Simca Horizon (sometimes just called Simca, sometimes written "Chrysler-Simca") in its home market. "Simca-Talbot Horizon" is a mish-mash of names and was never applied. Simca-Talbot seems to have been briefly used on some marketing material during the transitional period, in 1980. It was also sold as the Chrysler Horizon (UK) and Talbot Horizon, and during a transition period (1980) it was often listed as the Talbot Simca Horizon. No one name is clearly more important than any other, and therefore the original domestic name should be the title of this page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RCH (football club)Racing Club Heemstede – This title has been NEEDLESSLY cluttered. When the abbreviation is ambiguous, as is the case here, our convention is using the full name (or extra title words) before considering dabbing! gidonb (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl episodesPokémon the Series: Diamond and Pearl – Consistent with the other Pokémon seasons' wikipedia titles that don't have "List of _____ episodes". Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl, Pokémon: Black & White, Pokémon: XY and Pokémon the Series: Sun & Moon previously only weren't moved as these titles are ambiguous with the games they are named after. But since 2013, the Pokemon anime television series has been rebranded as "Pokemon the Series" (see the official Pokemon website anime section): * Pokémon the Series: Diamond and Pearl (Pokémon season 10) is the first and titular season of the Pokémon the Series: Diamond and Pearl * Pokémon the Series: Black and White (Pokémon season 14) is the first and titular season of the Pokémon the Series: Black and White (Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! in Japan) * Pokémon the Series: XY (Pokémon season 17) is the first and titular season of the Pokémon the Series: XY * Pokémon the Series: Sun and Moon (Pokémon season 20) is the first and titular season of the Pokémon the Series: Sun and Moon Pokémon the Series: Diamond and Pearl (Pokémon season 10; originally known as Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl) and Pokémon the Series: Black and White (Pokémon season 14; originally known as Pokemon: Black and White) were retroactively given the prefix "The Series" since the Pokémon anime rebranding to "Pokémon the Series" in 2013. Yeungkahchun (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ZosimusZosimus (historian) – Was briefly moved to this title in March 2010 but reverted because a "plain title should not redirect to disambiguated one". He has the highest traffic and appears most in internet searches, but I'm not sure the historian is such a notable figure that he should to be regarded as the primary topic, at least from a general reader's viewpoint. Avilich (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Training Center of Racing Club of StrasbourgRacing Mutest Académie – The current name is not the common name whatsoever and doesn't make much sense. It's not the proper naming convention or the official name. The club renamed it's youth academy in 2019, and it's clearly they are pushing forward the new name of the academy. This seems to be the official name of the academy. See the sources. 1 2 3. Additionally, other websites are using this term so I could see it being a common name. 4 5. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tomáš Garrigue MasarykT. G. Masaryk – Most common variation of the name in English-language print sources, per NGRAMS[29] From Google Scholar, English-only results since 2000 we get: *2770 for "T. G. Masaryk" (includes "TG Masaryk") *1490 for "Tomáš Masaryk" *1320 for "Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk" *1100 for "Thomas Masaryk" (includes results for another guy, Thomas J. Masaryk MD[30]) (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)De-rhotacismRhotic speech errors – Last week's requested move was incorrect, "de-rhotacism" is not used in literature, only existing in one paper [31] and a handful of forum posts. "De-rhotacization" is occasionally used to refer to the speech impediment but is not the common name, being mainly used to refer to incidental /r/ changes in studies of dialects. There are two common names that exist for this subject: * "Rhotacism" (preferred by older sources, still widespread) [32][33][34][35] * "Rhotic speech errors" (or "Rhotic errors"). This source (page 9) explicitly says that "Rhotic speech errors" is the preferred term in modern speech pathology: "clients with rhotic speech errors (formerly termed rhotacism) – Rhotacism was a traditional term within speech pathology". More sources using this term [36][37][38][39][40][41] This page should either be moved to back to "Rhotacism" or to "Rhotic speech errors", per WP:COMMONNAME. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Real-estate lock boxLock box – I requested at Uncontroversial Technical Requests that Lock box and Lockbox should be reversed, since the overwhelming use in the article's body text was for "lockbox" without the space, for which most major online dictionaries I have checked concur, some giving "lock box" as an alternative, and (UK) Collins saying it is a synonym for "keysafe". As a UK Citizen, I am not sure it is qute a synonym, as here it says it goes over the handle of a lockdoorknob>bold CE by proposer to correct the facts, whereas a keysafe is usually mounted to a wall. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, this might go to Lock box without the nearly WP:NATURALDIS of "real estate". But it's a bit iffy, because the references state "lock box", none states "real estate lock box", so this is kinda WP:OR to put "real estate" in front of it: in short, it is not a natural disambiguation because nobody refers to it as a "real estate lock box". either we go "Lock box (real estate)" or just plain "Lock box". I'm not trying to game the system, it just seemed in everyone's interest to get the uncontroversial redirect switch done before. (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC) (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dakota War of 1862U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 – Could the name of the page Dakota War of 1862 - - please be corrected? Wikipedia does not provide a source for that name. The name of the war is the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. It is true the war has been called many things throughout history: Dakota Conflict, Sioux Uprising, and I know of one documentary that called it Little Crow's War. It is fine to include these names since they indeed have been used, but all these names diminish the fact that this was a war between two sovereign nations. Please review the linked Minnesota Historical Society sources for their use of the name U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. It is the most consequential event in Minnesota history. I cannot find any source for Dakota War of 1862. See: and (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests


See also