Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
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 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 one of the following applies:

  • there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);
  • 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 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 22 November 2019" 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.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request is made for a page that is not the subject page of the talk page on which the request must be made. An example would be to make a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources|new1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}
and generally:
{{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
| 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 22 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (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 22 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (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 22 November 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019‎ (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 22 November 2019

– why Example (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (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 22 November 2019

– why Example (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (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}} or {{Mdn}}. 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. 26 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

November 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)TSMCTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing CompanyWP:NCA: Although TSMC or Taiwan Semiconductor are used in many news headers for space-saving purposes, the company's primary recognizable name should be Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (its full legal name minus the "ltd."). That is also the name on company profiles by CNBC and Bloomberg, which only use "TSMC" for subsequent mentions. -- Nemoschool (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

November 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)Theosophy (Boehmian)Christian theosophy – Move was the original name of this article, and we should revert to that. It is also the primary term used in reliable sources. Faivre is the greatest authority on this topic area, and he uses by a large margin the term Christian theosophy. When he (rarely) uses the term Boehmenist Theosophy, he talks about Jacob Boehme, not about Christian theosophy in general. Same with other scholars like Versluis. It was the original name of this article for many years (actually since the beginning of Wikipedia). It seems it was moved without discussion. Riley0O0O0O (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Relisting. Colin M (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Amir Khusrow → ? – Hi all, requested move is to the page titled Amir Khusrau. It is currently redirecting from that page to here. Jakob37 noted in 2009 that when he did a search of Amir Khusrau vs. Amir Khusrow, the number of results for the former outnumber. Based on a search and readings on Amir Khusrau, I believe the article title should change. Apollo1203 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

November 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)Battle of Hamburg (1945)Capture of Hamburg – I suggest this article should be moved to "Capture of Hamburg", as I think the current name is a misleading and gives a wrong impression about the actual campaign and scope of the battle in Hamburg. And the "Battle of Hamburg" is normally used for Operation Gomorrah and the Allied air campaign against Hamburg. A Google search on the Battle of Hamburg gives significantly more hits about the air campaign, than about the land campaign in which Hamburg was captured. EriFr (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Four Asian TigersEast Asian Miracle – Requesting a move to "East Asian Miracle" based on the more commonly used term. Google Ngram shows more results for "East Asian Miracle", which also has 239,000 results on Google Scholar compared to 91,400 for Asian tigers. Alternatively, rename to Four Asian Dragons, reflecting the name used by the originating countries of this economic phenomena. Google search results show 21 million for "four asian dragons," 11 million for "four asian tigers," and 58 million for "four little dragons." Google Scholar results show 62,700 results for "four dragon economies," 56,700 for "four tiger economies," 66,900 for "four asian tigers," and 79,900 for "four little dragons". Another possible title is "Four Little Dragons" based on Google Ngram showing more results for "four little dragons" than "four asian tigers". OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Energy subsidyFossil fuel subsidies – Most people searching for the info in this article would search for "fossil fuel subsidies". Fossil fuel subsidies are much much larger than renewable energy subsidies. The little content there is in this article on renewable energy and nuclear subsidies could be moved to the articles on renewable energy and nuclear power. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Get FreeGet Free (The Vines song) – Not exactly a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I doubt most people typing "Get Free" into Wikipedia are looking for a song by a band who may have been big a decade ago but seem washed-up today, especially since there are articles about Major Lazer and Lana Del Rey songs with the same title and both artists seem far more culturally relevant, especially the latter. It's also worth noting that, when the view counts for the three songs are compared, Lana's song is the clear winner (though I wouldn't call that a primary topic either).[1] What do you think? Vaporgaze (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Microbial symbiosis and immunityMicrobial-Mediated Immunity – The original title of this article "Microbial Symbiosis and Immunity has an "and" in the title and does not follow the Wikipedia title guidelines as it is not two similar topics but instead just one. Similar topics use a similar naming convention, such as "Cell-mediated immunity". Phillipebrown (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yom Kippur War1973 Arab–Israeli War – Both the names "Yom Kippur War" and "Ramadan War" is non neutral violation of WP:NPOV favoring one sides holiday. The name "1973 Arab–Israeli War" already redirecting to this article is neutral and a better summary than the non neutral name. KasimMejia (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Table-glassFaceted glass – The article has been somewhat better sourced through the AfD discussion, and lots of better names have been proposed. "Faceted glass" is a literal translation from the Russian and a perfectly plausible English description, so maybe it's best. If not, propose alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

November 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)Pete Dunne (wrestler)Pete Dunne – Looking at the page view stats from 1/1/2018 to present, the professional wrestler has averaged 1,000 page views a day and the author has averaged 5. The author has had a total of under 4,000 views during that entire time frame, and the wrestler has had tons of dates where they surpassed that total in a single day. A very clear example of the wrestler being the primary topic. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Coat (animal)Animal coat – Per WP:NATURAL and because the current disambiguation is confusing (a coat is not an animal, it's a trait of an animal). There is the possibility it could be confused with "coats for animals", but this one could too, so that doesn't really change anything. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nancy DavisNancy Davis (disambiguation) – Among the three women listed at the Nancy Davis disambiguation page, only one was known to the public as "Nancy Davis". It was the stage name she used throughout her entire acting career in which she received star or co-star billing in her on-screen credits (poster for 1950's The Next Voice You Hear or 1958's Crash Landing) and it is the name under which she is listed in the American Film Institute Catalog. She is also the subject of virtually all "Nancy Davis" Google searches. The other two women were never referenced as "Nancy Davis". The astronaut, born Nancy Jan Smotherman, has used the name "Jan", not "Nancy" and her article bears the main header, Jan Davis. The computer scientist is likewise not known to the public as "Nancy Davis" or "Nancy Davis Griffeth", but as Nancy Griffeth or Nancy D. Griffeth and all her writings and references are under the latter two forms. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 08:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MacedoniaMacedonia (disambiguation) – This page is too long. So it doesnt really look like a disambiguation page. Also it will look clear in google search results, that it is a disambiguation page. Better to bring clarity to the title itself. Crashed greek (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)Frozen 2Frozen II – The argument regarding Frozen II vs Frozen 2 has been going on too long. A lot of reviews, websites (the official Disney one says 2 in the tab title). On the other hand, the poster, RT, metacritic and movie theatre websites (such as cineplex), as well as the other half of reviews are saying II. The movie comes out in like, 3-4 days, can we please finally settle this. Someone said to open an RM, so here we go. EDIT: Just a side note that the on-screen title is FROZEN II. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Large UV Optical Infrared SurveyorLUVOIR – per Wikipedia's guidelines on commonly recognisable names. In addition to the official website of the project preferencing the use of the "LUVOIR" acronym in titles and prose,[2] various third party sources either preference the acronym or use the acronym more than its full name.[3][4][5][6] One should also note that LUVOIR already redirects to this article, and there is no other topic or subject with this name or acronym. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

November 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)George Jay Gould IGeorge Jay Gould – per MOS:COMMONNAME: the subject is most often referred to without any suffix (user-generated genealogy databases aside). Disambiguation is presently unneeded: The second George J. Gould (II or Jr.) is likely not individually notable: aside from rote checklists of born-to, betrotheds and begots, he seems to have done very little of note. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AtropateneMedia Atropatene – It seems that usage of simply "Atropatene" (Adurbadagan) first appears with the advent of the Sasanians, per the sources; This is the most interesting one: # "After the fall of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE, the Iranian governor and commander Atarpat (Atropates) proclaimed his independence. From this period forward, the region would be referred to by Greek and Roman authors as Media Atropatene and at times as Media Minor. The Greek geographer Strabo wrote that Media was "divided into two parts". One part of it was called "Greater Media, of which the metropolis" was "Ecbatana, a large city containing the royal residence of the Median Empire", and the other part was Atropatian Media [present-day Iranian Azerbaijan], which got its name from the commander Atropates, who preserved this country, which was a part of Greater Media, from becoming subject to the Macedonians". - The Persian Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes]: A Historical Encyclopedia, p. 70 [5] The rest: * "By 148 BCE, Media and Media Atropatene had been overrun." - The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, p. 169 [6] * "Closely related to the above questions is the thorny issue of the reported Armenian aggression against Arsacids interests in the region of Nineveh, Arbela, and Media Atropatene, the latter of which allegedly submitted to Tigranes." - Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, p. 320 [7] * "Cleopatra also looked for new allies and supposedly executed Artavasdes II of Armenia, still a hostage at the court, and sent his head to his rival, the king of Media Atropatene, also named Artavasdes, in the hopes of support from that region." - Cleopatra: A Biography, p. 141 [8] * "Ariobarzanes (king of Media Atropatene)" - Augustan Rome 44 BC to AD 14, p. 259 [9] * "During the reign of Artabanus (Ardavan) II (10-38 CE), who was from Media Atropatene (Azarbaijan) in northwestern Iran and an Arsacid through his mother, the process of Iranisation continued." - The Age of the Parthians, p. 16 [10] * "The elder brother, Pacorus, was given the throne of Media Atropatene (Tac., Ann., 15, 2, 1), the younger, Tiridates, that of Armenia" - The Parthian kingship, p. 125 [11] * "Vologases I, son of Vonones II of Media, associated the throne with his two brothers, monarchs in Armenia and Media Atropatene, and thereby conferred stability to the top of the state structure and consolidated the whole empire." - King of the Seven Climes: A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000 BCE - 651 CE), p. 132 [12] * "Artabanos came to rule in Media Atropatene in circumstances which have not been clarified yet. And it was from Media Atropatene that he launched and conducted his struggle for the throne of Parthia against Vonones I." - The genealogy of Artabanos II (AD 8/9–39/40), King of Parthia, p. 92 [13] ...and more, but I guess this should be enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Backpacking (wilderness)Multi-day hiking – * Current disambiguator (wilderness) is incorrect: backpacking can occur outside of wilderness areas (overly WP:PRECISE) * "Backpacking" is a North American term, "Trekking" and other terms are common elsewhere (WP:COMMONNAME) * "Backpacking" is ambiguous: does it cover hut-to-hut hiking and pack-supported trips? (WP:PRECISION) * "Multi-day hiking" removes the ambiguity: this article covers any multi-day hiking trip * "Multi-day hiking" also is unambiguous with respect to Backpacking (travel), a generic mode of travel * "Multi-day hiking" is a fairly common term in North America, Australia, and New Zealand — hike395 (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shave brushShaving brush – Personally I've never seen or heard the term "shave brush" used outside of Wikipedia; the universally accepted name is "shaving brush". A Google Trends search shows "shaving brush" has been the more popular search term since 2004 and on average is 3x more popular. I also tried a Google Ngram Viewer search but "shave brush" isn't even a recognised search term. The "shaving" prefix is also more commonly used with other shaving-related equipment and cosmetics, such as shaving cream, shaving soap, shaving mug, shaving scuttle... 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hope Lodge (disambiguation)Hope Lodge – Request move of disambiguation page back to original location, after noticing and moving a page now at Hope Lodge (American Cancer Society) out of the way, to allow for this. I assumed this would be non-controversial, because there are many usages of the term, and the American Cancer Society one does not appear to have overwhelming wp:PRIMARYUSAGE. I think there is no one most prominent/salient usage. However I then noticed that there might be disagreement, because in fact editor User:Werldwayd had moved the disambiguation page out of their way, in February 2018, when they created the American Cancer Society one's page. They asserted it being "very important" in an edit summary. Me, i don't think that usage is primary. By this move discussion, I want to secure ratification that the move of the ACS page was okay, too, i.e. that the main "Hope Lodge" location can again be the disambiguation page. Doncram (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)WYAY (FM 93.7)WYAY (FM) – We don't include the frequency in a radio station's article title; just the callsign and the type (which is dis-ambiguated with either -XX or (XX) with the punctuation answering whether the FCC includes the suffix; in this case it doesn't so the article's title should be WYAY (FM).) Georgia guy (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Xenu → ? – "Xenu" is really just a person/character in the story, and it feels a bit awkward labelling the whole article by that name - a bit like calling the article Genesis creation narrative by the name "God" or "Adam". You can't say the article is about the individual person, and thus shouldn't carry his name by default. I'm not sure what to call it instead though, but a few ideas: *"The Wall of Fire (Scientology)" or "Incident II", which is what the church internally calls the story *"Scientology creation myth", which is not entirely accurate but they do regard it very heavily *"Xenu story" or "Xenu narrative" or something similar, keeping with the namesake but clarifying the focus on the narrative Thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 12:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15, 2019

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Baylor University Medical Center at DallasBaylor University Medical Center – It appears this is the former name of this page, but was moved per the move discussion in 2010, above. In contrast to the move discussion, I see no evidence that this hospital is referred to by the present title of the article, per a Google search under the proposed and current names and the official website. Moreover, similarly named hospitals in Houston are "Baylor College of Medicine Medical Center - McNair campus" and Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center, not the proposed name as the 2010 request suggests. So, I see no need for the "at Dallas" qualifier. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BAMTechDisney Streaming Services – There are a number of sources listed above. I would particularily draw editors attention to the BAM Tech website direct viewers to go to their new website,, which is Disney Streaming Services' website. Spshu (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)LatLat (cartoonist) – so that Lat (disambiguation) -> LAT lat and Lat -> LAT LAT -> lat, because this cartoonist is less notable than many things named lat such as latitude, Latvian lat and Los Angeles Times. Roy17 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC) (Changed redirect target 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC))
  • (Discuss)Selecta (vending company) → ? – Selecta is no longer just a vending machine company, and has not been for a number of years - vending machines are only one small part of their offering, so I wonder if this descriptor in the title is a little misleading? I would appreciate your thoughts. Selecta does still operate a number of public, semi-public and private vending machines, but a large part of the business is now in self-service coffee machines and self-service food on the go choices in workplaces (but these aren't vending machines, they are more like 24/7 self-service supermarkets offering healthy meals, snacks and drinks, which are housed within a workplace office). 'Selecta Group' or 'Selecta (unattended self-service retailer)' may be more appropriate? Or even just 'Selecta (self-service retailer)'? Many thanks for your consideration. EmilyRH31 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rainmaker StudiosMainframe Studios – As of October 11, 2019, the Rainmaker Studios branding has been ditched for an overall re-brand as Mainframe Studios: "Originally founded as Mainframe Entertainment, we operated under the name Rainmaker Entertainment for over a decade, but we’ve now returned to our roots." If you go to, it re-directs you to Mainframe Studios currently acts as a re-direct to this page, so I'm not clear on how we should rename it. Move all the content from here to the re-direct and then make Rainmaker Studios a re-direct page? Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pell GrantPell grant – This is not a proper noun. It is a type of grant, not one specific grant. See the RM discussions at Talk:Personal equity plan, Talk:Individual savings account, and Talk:Tax-free savings account. As the proper noun article says, "a class of entities" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Some writers use capital letters to indicate any special string of words or anything to be abbreviated with initials, but Wikipedia's convention is to use sentence case for topic names instead. The second sentence of the article says "Federal Pell Grants are ..." If it's plural, it's not a proper noun (with few exceptions, as with the Hendersons, the Everglades, the Azores, the Pleiades). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nazi gas vanGas vanUser:Nug split this article (which he himself acknowledged was WP:BOLD) with no discussion or warning here, and immediately edited the redirect resulting from the move into a DAB, making a revert impossible. Since then, My very best wishes, Paul Siebert, and myself all expressed the view that this was a mistake; ZScarpia expressed support, but it was still clearly not discussed and still seems to lack consensus. I request that it be reverted, at least until some consensus for the move / split can be demonstrated. When I said I would request that this be reverted, Nug essentially objected by demanding that we hold a straw poll before reverting them, but given that there was no discussion beforehand I don't think this is necessary; they must demonstrate consensus before a contested move or split, not after. --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Varma (surname)Varma (name) – So Varma (given name) was deleted again, this time without discussion. The problem here is that Varma (name) was a good title, but then some Verschlimmbesserwisser went and moved it to exclude the first name and then delete the article about the first name. So, logically, the best course of action is to return to the status quo ante bellum where both topics inhabit the same article. vuo (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Luiz Inácio Lula da SilvaLula – Per section above, Lula is not part of his name but a nickname. "Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva" is a ridiculous construction. It should either be "Luiz Inácio da Silva" or just "Lula". – PeeJay 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ "LUVOIR: Design" (Archived) – Goddard Space Flight Center – "LUVOIR (Large UV Optical Infrared telescope) is a concept for a large multi-wavelength, serviceable observatory following the heritage of the Hubble Space Telescope."
  3. ^ "Alien Life On Exoplanets May Be 'More Abundant And Active' Than On Earth, Say Scientists" (Archived) – Forbes – ""Ideally this work this will inform telescope design to ensure that future missions, such as the proposed LUVOIR or HabEx telescope concepts, have the right capabilities""
  4. ^ "The ongoing search for habitable exoplanets" (Archived) – – "LUVOIR is envisioned to be a twelve- to fifteen-meter diameter telescope that would operate about a million miles from Earth. [...] As researchers look to new technologies such as the new spectrographs, LUVOIR, and other future missions..."
  5. ^ "Selecting the next great space observatory" (Archived) – The Space Review – "What that means is the science that astronomers hope a LUVOIR-like telescope could achieve. [...] LUVOIR is billed as something of a general-purpose astrophysics observatory [...] Advocates of LUVOIR bill it as a next-generation Hubble..."
  6. ^ "Space Telescopes of the Future: NASA Has 4 Ideas for Great Observatory to Fly in 2030s" (Archived) – – "LUVOIR's mirror would be more than six times wider than the one in Hubble. This means that LUVOIR would see the universe with six times the resolution of Hubble. [...] LUVOIR would see fainter, smaller and more-distant objects."

See also