Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested Moves)
Jump to: navigation, 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:

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

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page[edit]

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely 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[edit]

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason = reason for move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

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

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title;
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, because this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move[edit]

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 22 October 2017" and sign for you.

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructions[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.


Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

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

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

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussions[edit]

This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 32 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

October 22, 2017[edit]

October 21, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)KartikeyaMurugan – In the previous move request, the reason given for moving the article is that Kartikeya is a pan-Indian name, while Murugan is not. This is not a valid rationale for moving, we should look tof the global usage of the name rather than Indian usage, which wasn't proven with sources. Google ngram shows that the name Murugan is more common.Tertiary sources like Britannica use Murugan and also treat Murugan and Kartikeya as 2 deities who merged together in history. The previous move rationale was more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than a true rationale. (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anaheim, CaliforniaAnaheim – Anaheim in Orange County, California is the only place named Anaheim – and is a well known name, when in reference to the city, readers will know where that is. Anaheim is the largest city in Orange County and third largest in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Since is very unlikely that Anaheim would refer to anything else but the city, the City of Anaheim should not have the state name after it. Move per WP:COMMONNAME. Look at places such as Denver, Honolulu, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Boston, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City, which don't have the state after the name. Anaheim is as well known, even more so, as the largest city in Orange County and home to Disneyland. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

October 20, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Parliament of FinlandEduskunta – As Finland is officially a non-English-speaking country, it seems short-sighted to have an unofficial English name as the name of this article. Respective articles about parliaments abroad follow a logical pattern: the name of the article is the name of the parliament in the majority native language (see: Folketing, Riksdag, Althing). The most obvious reason for this is that Finland does not have an institution literally called ’Parliament’. We’ve got an eduskunta, and for the sake of both truthfulness and loyalty to abiding by widely-used practices, let’s name this article that. Pessimistipasta (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)USAFacts.orgUSAFacts – The organization this Wikipedia page is about is called USAFacts as per its naming convention, not, that is simply the website. The corporation is called: USAFacts as per their terms and conditions that can be found here: - This Site is owned and operated by nonstock corporation (“USAFacts”). Marthausa2017 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Catholicism (term)Catholicism (concept) – As the proposal to merge/split this article has been rejected in favor of keeping this as a stand alone article, and because many inbound "Catholicism" links are meant more correctly for the Catholic Church article, I would propose this article be renamed to address the concept of Catholicism, to more clearly differentiate it from the article "Catholic (term)". –Zfish118talk 16:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

October 19, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Screener (website)Zap2It – The reason for this is because six months ago, Tribune Digital Ventures dropped the Screener name from the website, and reverted it back to the previous Zap2It brand. Zap2It is the original name of the website. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Air dancer → ? – This is a procedural request based on an off-wiki conversation. The concern is that "Air dancer" is not the COMMONNAME and could be confused with "AirDancer" the company. Every name I can find out there other than "air dancer", including "inflatable tube man" and "sky dancer" all seem to be in roughly the same quantities, though obviously since there's a company called Air Dancer it's getting more hits. Throwing this out there to settle the matter. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pecheneg machine gunPKP Pecheneg – Of all the variations of this machine guns name, I believe "PKP Pecheneg" is the one that is the most accurate and unambiguous, without being excessively long (which I feel "PKP Pecheneg machine gun" is). Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rachel Rhodes (singer)Rei Yasuda – From Google, it appears that there are far more hits about her under "Rei Yasuda" or "安田レイ" than Rachel Rhodes (with or without the disambiguation "singer"); in addition, virtually all recent sources about her (Japanese or English) refer to her as Rei Yasuda, often without mentioning her real name. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

October 18, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Albert de LouvainAlbert of Louvain – Articles and books written in English (including the academic article cited in the article itself) use "Albert of Leuven" or "Albert of Louvain" (with a slight majority for the latter). These include Laura Napran's 2005 translation of Gilbert of Mons's Chronicle of Hainaut, modern editions of Butler's Lives of the Saints, Luc Duerloo's Dynasty and Piety (2016), and Jasper van der Steen, Memory Wars in the Low Countries (2015) Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TNT (TV channel)TNT (U.S. TV channel) – I would like to reopen this move request back five years later. The main reason I would like to see this article moved is because the Russian channel is "considered to be one of the five most popular TV channels in Russia".[1] I do not speak Russian myself, but if this true, then comparatively, Russian TNT is a federal channel, while American TNT is a cable channel, not a big channel like ABC or NBC. Plus, American TNT went by its full name, Turner Network Television, until 1995, and Russian TNT was launched only three years later. So while TNT is more known on the English Wikipedia as it is an American channel, I cannot see this as a primary topic "TV channel"-wise. JE98 (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

October 17, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Nkhotakota Game ReserveNkhotakota Wildlife Reserve – There are some sources that use "Nkhotakota Game Reserve", but "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" is used much more often in secondary sourcing, and by African Parks, the nonprofit conservation organization managing the reserve. Here is a link to the reserve's page on African Parks' website, and following are appearances of the name in news and journal sources: CNN, The Daily Telegraph, HuffPost, National Geographic, etc. In terms of search engine results, searching "Nkhotakota Game Reserve" at Google yields 20,300 results, and searching "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" yields 53,300 results. "Nkhotakota Game Reserve" should redirect users to the "Nkhotakota Wildlife Reserve" article. Full disclosure: I am submitting this request on behalf of African Parks via the Wyss Foundation, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink. This is part of a series of requests to create and expand several Wikipedia articles related to African Parks, and the second move request, following the successful move of the African Parks article itself (see Talk:African Parks). You can learn more here: User:Inkian Jason/African Parks. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hurricane Ophelia (2017)Hurricane Ophelia – Honestly this one looks to be the notorious one, given it did over a billion in the UK/Ireland. Although 2011 was stronger, that one did minimal damage. Small chance this is like Isaac 2012 again where it does the most damage (as C1) in the billions but not the main topic. Thoughts? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

October 16, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Samantha Ruth PrabhuSamantha (Indian actress) – She isn't credited by her full name in films, and even the media refers to her as just "Samantha". No admin will permit this article's move to "Samantha (actress)", citing other actresses sharing the same name. Plus, with her recent marriage, she's likely to replace "Ruth Prabhu" with "Akkineni" as her last name. But neither of the last names will be as common as her mononym. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Malcolm M. LucasMalcolm Lucas – Subject is not universally known by a name including his middle initial (see both obituaries cited in the article); "Malcolm Lucas" is currently occupied by a WP:TWODABS disambiguation page, for which the other entry, "Mal Lucas", is for a person rarely referred to as "Malcolm" at all. Between the two, a former Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court would seem to be the clear primary topic over a fairly random footballer. The judge also pulls more than five times as many pageviews as the footballer, which could make the case even if the footballer was known as "Malcolm". bd2412 T 01:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

October 15, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Spot the dogSpot (puppy character) – Although "Spot the dog" (the outcome of the recent move review) is an improvement over the old title (Spot the Dog), the proposed title would be superior for disambiguating among the other topics listed at Spot and would describe the common element of the topics discussed in the article (books, television series, home video productions, albums, and CD-ROM titles). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Organ (anatomy)Organ – Primary topic as suggested by CFCF and and supported by Tom (LT). Link to pageviews in previous section. Iztwoz (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Proto-Tibeto-Burman languageJames Matisoff's reconstruction of Proto-Tibeto-Burman – NoGhost and JohnBlackburne moved the page to its current location, without leaving a comment on the talk page. The talk page already discusses the reason for mentioning Matisoff, namely that the article only describes his system. Removing his name from the article without otherwise changing the content of the article is a substantial misrepresentation of the article's content. Gong Hwang Cherng, Nishida Tatsuo, and others have published views on Tibeto-Burman reconstruction, but this article only treat's Matisoff's opinions. Tibetologist (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Henry Bolton (British politician)Henry Bolton – As with Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, the article title of their Wikipedia page is simply their name - no (politician) or (British politician) next to it. Now that Henry Bolton is the leader of the UK Independence Party, the title of his Wikipedia page should simply be his name. I have requested the page currently under Henry Bolton to be deleted as I do not feel it is necessary. Lighthouse3050 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

  • (Discuss)Clermont SetClermont Club – Higher level name, the Clermont Set was a group of people who met at this famous London gambling club, which needs its own article, which will incorporate text about membership, including the Clermont Set Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Native AmericansNative Americans (disambiguation) – Redirect Native Americans to Native Americans in the United States, per WP:PRIMARY. Some of the entries on the disambiguation page appear to be original research; e.g. First Nations of Canada are not referred to as Native Americans (except inasmuch as they're within the category of indigenous peoples of the Americas, which "Native American" is (rarely) used to mean, as a confusingly ambiguous blanket term). The DAB page's current breakdown of just about every article we have on subtopics of indigenous peoples of the Americas isn't how we do DAB pages. No one ever writes "Native Americans" and specifically and only means "indigenous peoples in Ecuador", so entries like that should not be on this page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Данные по аудитории". Россия → Неделя → Среднесуточная доля. TNS Россия, Media & Custom Research. Retrieved 2015-05-17. 
  2. ^ *Yahoo Sports on Twitter *Yahoo Sports on Instagram *Yahoo Sports on Facebook *Yahoo Sports: Football & More on iTunes Preview *Yahoo Sports on Google Play
  3. ^ Hotărârea Comitetului de Urgență din 24 august 2017
  4. ^ Schedule.
Rhinen (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grandin stationGrandin/Government Centre station – Currently the official recognized name for this station is "Grandin/Government Centre station". As far as I can tell the City of Edmonton Website, station/train announcements and current signage refer to it as such (I can list numerous references for this as required). Since all other Edmonton LRT stations with a "/" in their name have already been moved to accommodate, I motion that the same thing be done with "Grandin station". I can see that this was lightly discussed a decade ago at the top of the talk page however I believe the circumstances are now different and a move is warranted. Vanstrat (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (Canada)Opposition House Leader (Canada) – The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is the Leader of the Official Opposition. The current article is discribing the Opposition House Leader, who is not the Leader of the Opposition. See: 1. [20] 2. [21] ("Notwithstanding anything in the Parliament of Canada Act, the lands described in Schedule II and the buildings thereon shall be maintained as a residence for the person holding the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, in this Act called “the Leader of the Opposition”.") 3. [22] Zhantongz (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Malformed requests[edit]


See also[edit]