Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts:

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 our article titling policy and our 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, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page, see below: § Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus, see below: § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to use the requested move process in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

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]

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • 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.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete the move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request, go to the bottom of this section that you are reading right now; edit the subsection Uncontroversial technical requests; insert the following code at the top:
{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|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 it to the Contested technical requests section. Add a note saying "Moved by..." and add your signature with ~~~~.

  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. This may apply, for example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. 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 propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

{{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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing 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). Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 12 February 2016". Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. The template must be substituted.

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

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations need not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should.

RMCD bot notifies any Wikiproject 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 default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any 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".
  • 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, and more closers of move requests are needed, but there are certain procedures that need to be followed. Please read our closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.

Relisting[edit]

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 WP: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]

Shortcut:
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.

February 12, 2016[edit]

February 11, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)M*A*S*H (novels)List of M*A*S*H novels – More accurately describe the contents of this article, which isn't about multiple novels with the title "M*A*S*H" but a series of novels in the MASH franchise. Tried to boldly move it, only to find that title on the blacklist (though I can't find out why). oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ted Wass (actor)Ted Wass – Two reasons here. 1. The second Ted Wass is only pulling like 100 views every 90 days. This guy is getting almost 90 times that. I'd say this guy has already proved he is more notable and will have more significance in the future based on his achievements already, while the other guy has been dead for 60+ years and is clearly just kind of a blip on the radar. 2. Ted Wass hasn't been an actor in many years, moving to directing instead, and he is now a very significant director, having done 60+ shows and hundreds of episodes of television. This means the current title is not accurate. But if you moved it to Ted Wass (director) you might have people complaining the title doesn't reflect his career as an actor. So, this is my proposal. (Alternatively, if no other Ted Wass are found on Wikipedia, the DAB can be deleted entirely.) Nohomersryan (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pabellón José Luis AbósPabellón Príncipe Felipe – This is a controversy now in Zaragoza. Let's see. The pavillion was always named as "Pabellón Príncipe Felipe" since its opening, but in 2015 the new government of the town of Zaragoza decided to change the name to "Pabellón José Luis Abós", in honour to a former manager of CAI Zaragoza, who dead in 2014, without any discussion in the Hall. When the works for changing the name were in process, a judicial sentence decided to stop the naming and to remain the old name "Príncipe Felipe" (source). Currently, all the main events (CAI Zaragoza games) are played at "Príncipe Felipe" and not at "José Luis Abós" and the Town Hall refers to it as "Pabellón Príncipe Felipe" (source). Asturkian (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 10, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)The Dover Road (film)Where Sinners Meet – Requesting on behalf of Onel5969 whose rationale is: "contemporaneous sources all agree that the title of the film is indeed Where Sinners Meet, and that The Dover Road was simply a working title, since the source (Milne's book) was titled that." The original request was made as a request to delete the redirect currently at Where Sinners Meet, which was declined because a discussion about a page move should happen on the article's talk page. Onel5969 was provided a link to instructions but has not done so, so I am opening the discussion on their behalf. I don't expect this to be controversial but it was declined as a speedy request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Not Safe with Nikki GlaserNot Safe – "with Nikki Glaser" is not a consistent part of the title. The opening warning for example says onscreen (and is similarly narrated by Nikki) "Not Safe is for mature audiences only" (she does not orate her name as part of the show title, just the first 2 words) and the title card stylizes it "NOT SAFE W/ NIKKI GLASER" (check this at http://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/not-safe-with-nikki-glaser-review.jpg if skeptical). Since there is not even a consistent "with" v "w/" and the last 3 terms are dropped in the warning and Not Safe is a redirect to here anyway it makes sense to shorten this as the WP:COMMONNAME. Adding the "with" part would only make sense if there were different incarnations of the show, like how Daily Show had Jon Stewart and Trevor Noah. Until that point we should use the shorter title. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Broadcom (disambiguation)Broadcom – Recently Avago Technologies (AVGO) acquired Broadcom Corporation (BRCM). The combination of Avago and Broadcom Corporation was given a new name, Broadcom Limited but kept the AVGO ticker symbol. The former Avago article was renamed Broadcom Limited. Thus, there are two articles beginning Broadcom... about different but related entities. If you search for "Broadcom" only Broadcom Corporation comes up. This violates WP:BIAS. These moves resolve that bias. Talk to SageGreenRider 12:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 9, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Brodus ClayTyrus (wrestler) – See above reasons. He is long gone from the company where he was known as Brodus and is not mentioned by that name anywhere anymore. Tyrus makes more sense as he is now known by that. MavsFan28 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--Relisted. Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 13:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)King (band)King (new wave band) – As it stands, KING (band) violates WP:ALLCAPS. Based on the article, it does not appear to be an acronym, initialism, or abbreviation. Both bands are English, so King (British band) nor King (English band) would make suitable disambiguation options. Additionally, I plan to create an article about a third group called King that has been active since 2009, so disambiguation by use of decades wouldn't really work as the second band was active up until the same decade. If anyone prefers a different genre to identify the current articles by, by all means suggest them. — ξxplicit 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 8, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)GuernseyBailiwick of Guernsey – Following creation of new article Guernsey (island), this article should be moved to Bailiwick of Guernsey; since the "Guernsey" refers predominately to the island, and "Bailiwick of Guernsey" is a more precise and less ambiguous title for this article. Then, after links are cleaned up, either Guernsey (island) or Guernsey (disambiguation) can be moved to "Guernsey". Rob984 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Edit: Withdrawn proposal following my failed attempt at reorganisation (of which this was part of), although I wont close the thread since the discussion below seems to be on how to reorganise from now. Rob984 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Louise RossLJ Ross – Conventional to use an author's public pen name rather than personal name as page name. – JR3592 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reliability (psychometrics)Reliability (statistics) – As discussed in the talk page, the term reliability is used in statistics in general rather than in psychometrics alone. This would also make this page consistent with Validity (statistics). Both terms are often used together. SiggyF (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gridiron footballFootball in the U.S. and Canada – Simply put, the term "gridiron football" is not used in this way outside of Wikipedia. It's not an umbrella term for American and Canadian football together. It's chiefly a synonym for American football specifically.[1][2][3] The phrase is rarely used in U.S. or Canada, and is mostly found in foreign works discussing American football. There really isn't a commonly used umbrella term for both American and Canadian varieties (other than "football", which obviously won't work here.) Some scholars use "North American football" to discuss both together,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] but barring that, it's probably best to go with a neutral, descriptive title per the article titles policy. Cúchullain t/c 17:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ajayi CrowtherSamuel Ajayi Crowther – This article is well referenced and almost every book, article or newspaper report refers to the subject as "Samuel Ajayi Crowther". Perhaps his mother called him Ajayi, but to the rest of the world he was commonly known as Samuel Ajayi Crowther, with spelling variations of Ajayi Wayne Jayes (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

February 7, 2016[edit]

February 6, 2016[edit]

February 5, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Melleny BrownMelleny Melody – The current entry is for the name the artist was formerly known as and not the name she is known by today. If Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr can be redirected to Mohammad Ali, Melleny Brown should redirect to Melleny Melody. Buddroyce (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
  • (Discuss)IsmaïliaIsmailia – Spelling with dieresis is chiefly French, and only occasionally encountered in English literature. Ngram shows significant prevalence of the variant without diacritics. No such user (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Audacity (audio editor)Audacity – This article appears to be a primary topic, particularly since audacity does not directly redirect to boldness but is simply a disambiguation page; this suggest that the noun is not what people are looking for. The only other candidate for a primary encyclopedia topic is HMS Audacity (D10), which has a natural disambiguation. I think most people typing "audacity" into the search box are looking for the audio editor. Every hit on the first page of a Google search for "audacity" brings this up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Los UrabeñosUsuga Clan – From 2014 is the group's name. See: * President Juan Manuel Santos in 2014 changed the group’s name to “Clan Usuga,” referring to its current boss, Dario Antonio Usuga, a.k.a. “Otoniel.”[1] * Colombian police seize two tons of cocaine from Usuga Clan criminal gang (January 2016)[2] * "... arrested eight suspects during an operation targeting the Clan Usuga gang, Colombian police said."[3] * Colombia War and Peace / Clan Usuga [4] * Colombian police hunt most wanted drug baron 'Otoniel' [5] * Colombia's hunt for elusive drug lord Otoniel [6] Colombian newspapers section about Clan Usuga: * Clan Úsuga: Noticias, Fotos y Videos de Clan Úsuga [7] * Noticias de Clan Úsuga [8] Spanish Wikipedia: * Clan Úsuga: es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Úsuga [9] Google: Search for Clan Úsuga: 290,000 results [10]. Pipepupo (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PoplarPoplar (disambiguation) – Poplar was a redirect to Populus. As there are a number of topics which have the name Poplar, including the place in London: Poplar, London; and as the genus Populus includes trees which are not polars, such as Aspen and Cottonwood, while common poplars such as Yellow poplar or Tulip poplar which are NOT part of Populus are not covered by that page, I saw the redirect as problematic, and moved Poplar (disambiguation) to Poplar, rewriting it to make it more informative and helpful. As I did that I noticed that the vast majority of the incoming links to Popular were for the tree poplar, though without specifying which tree (they could be for white poplar, black poplar or the non-Populus tulip poplar). I wondered if a new article, just on the poplar tree - a broad concert article to briefly discuss poplar trees including tulip poplar, and then direct readers to the right place, might be a way forward. I also wondered if this was going to be too much work for me, and if I should just return it to how it was. In the meantime a couple of editors have raised concerns about the move on my talkpage. More imput is need on this matter. I am neutral on this and am not actually advocating a return to the status quo, though that may be the easiest solution. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alan Hale, Sr.Alan Hale (Sr.) – The article was renamed to the proposed title, but I had it reverted by someone else. This should be discussed. Roman Spinner should explain this kind of disambiguation. Speaking of disambiguation, parenthesizing "Sr." makes the name unusual. Of course, Alan Hale (actor) would be possible with a hatnote distinguishing the guy's son, "Skipper" unless that would be confusing. George Ho (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KyriosKyrios (Biblical term) – Currently, there are two wikipedia articles on related concepts: kyrios and kurios. Given that "kyrios" and "kurios" are both acceptable transliterations of the Greek κυριος, the two articles should be better disambiguated. The current state of affairs clearly causes confusion: for instance, I just fixed a link here which seems to have been meant to point at kurios but in fact pointed at kyrios. I have previously had to fix the same problem here. As this article (currently "kyrios") is clearly a subset of kurios, this article should be moved to Kyrios (Biblical term) which not only already redirects to this article, but is what this article is called in the disambiguation hatnote to kurios! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Michael W. DickinsonMichael Dickinson (horseman) – the article previously existed under that title but was moved to Michael W. Dickinson. I don't believe this is a good disambiguator, Dickinson is not known by a middle initial and the disamniguation guidelines advise not using a middle initial or name if the subject was not commonly known as such Bcp67 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taharrush jamaiMass sexual assault in Egypt
    It appears that the German police made a mistake in January 2016 when they described "a practice in Arab countries known as 'taharrush gameâ' (collective sexual harassment in crowds)."[11] It was a mistake not only of transliteration (it is apparently more accurate to transliterate this as taharrush jamai). It was also a mistake to describe it as something that occurs in Arab countries. There has been a practice in Egypt since 2005 where women have been subjected to mass sexual assault by crowds during political protests and religious festivals: 500 cases were recorded there between June 2012 and June 2014.[12] Taharrush jamai is just one of the phrases Egyptians use to describe these attacks. But there is no such practice in other Arab countries that I can find. Hosting the article under an Arabic title gives the impression that there is something distinctively Arabic about this. Another editor argued that it would be like the Arabic Wikipedia hosting their article on school shootings under "School shootings," as though there is something distinctively English about that. I therefore propose that this be moved to Mass sexual assault in Egypt (currently a redirect), which is the focus of the sources and the article. The New York Times has used the phrase "mass sexual assault" to describe these attacks.[13] The only part of the content that will have to change to accommodate the new title is the first paragraph.

References

SarahSV (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Waldorf educationSteiner Waldorf education – In some countries the schools are known as Waldorf schools, but in other countries they are known as Steiner schools. Choosing one of these name are confusing to people that only knows of the other one, so I suggest that the page name is changed to Steiner Waldorf education, so that everybody has a chance to make the correct association, no matter which of names they are used to or looking for. This is surely the reasoning behind the name "Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship", "the membership organisation for all the Steiner schools and independent Steiner Early Years settings in the UK and Ireland", as it says on their web site (http://www.steinerwaldorf.org/). To mention Steiner in the page name is especially appropriate since we are talking about Steiner Waldorf education, and not purely the name of the schools; I would argue that the educational system is even more closely linked to Rudolf Steiner's name than the schools, per se. The exact page name could be written as Steiner Waldorf education or Steiner/Waldorf education, or something slightly different. The important thing is to mention both Steiner and Waldorf in the name. The old name should be a redirect to the new one, obviously. Dash (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Universal Records (disambiguation)Universal Records – Reopening this move because there are two labels available as "Universal Records": The Universal Records (defunct record label), which was launched in 1995 and defunct in 2005 and the Universal Records Philippines, Inc. (URPI), which was launched in 1977 and it is not associated with the Universal Music Group or the defunct label with the same name or the Philippine affiliate which is known locally as MCA Music which they are not allowed to use the "Universal" name which , which was not discussed and mentioned on the previous requested move. It seems that neither of the article will be marked as primary topic because one has been defunct and one is existing right now. I think neither the defunct record label nor the Philippine record label should be the primary topic so this must be moved. Feel free to express your thoughts on this. Thank you. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 10:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Michael Lucas (director) → ? – He produced two documentaries, making him a filmmaker. He is also a porn star and a director. I'm thinking "(filmmaker)" may fit this person's role, but we can alternatively use "(entertainer)" if that defines him well. "(actor)" or "(pornographic actor)" neglects the fact that he is also a director; "(director)" obscures the fact that he performs onscreen. George Ho (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

All of them have different disambiguation uses, some more valid than the others. "Embrace" was discussed here, with a consensus to move to Embrace (American album) and Embrace (English album), eventually somebody re-moved it. I tried with "Lucero", but there was not support. "Bleach" was discussed here. I later brought it to WP:NCM (here), but there was no major discussion. Now months later, I think there should be a consensus to choose which is the best disambiguation in these cases for further references. The options are:

I prefer to disambiguate by year, but oppose the usage of brackets-in-brackets. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Genetic engineering in science fictionGenetic manipulation in science fiction – Currently the article consists of two lists, one for "Genetic engineering in science fiction" and another for "Eugenics in science fiction". Eugenics can only be considered genetic engineering if we take a very broad view of its definition (see Genetic engineering#Definition). Also the presence of two lists with one named after the title suggests that Eugenics does not fit well under this current heading. Renaming to genetic manipulation provides a much broader focus for this article, allowing eugenics to fit much more comfortably. It will also allow the closely related topic of "cloning in science fiction" to be covered if desired. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rare → ? – After this article's move to its present title, a few editors have expressed concerns at different venues on Wikipedia over the low participation of the RM, and whether this article is actually the primary topic for "Rare". I am therefore starting another RM discussion to determine consensus from wider discussion. If you do not think that this article is the primary topic for "Rare", please suggest a new title for this article, and specify which page should be moved to Rare in place of the current article. If this discussion results in no consensus to move this article, it should stay at its present name. sst 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Genesis creation narrativeGenesis creation myth – This article is about a creation myth, in particular the Genesis creation myth. This is clearly stated in the opening sentence and is virtually undisputed in the relevant academic literature. The question seems raised then of why this article isn't titled Genesis creation myth. I fear that this article has received some special considerations compared to other creation myth articles due to compassion for the average readers religious inclinations, and a hope to avoid accidentally offending someone. This grates against the ideals of neutrality that this project is trying to uphold, and doing so is codified against in the NPOV policy:  ::[E]ditors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view -- WP:RNPOV Since it has been almost 2 years since a discussion on this point has been had per the info box at the top of this article, I would like to see if consensus still maintains that this article should be called Genesis creation narrative, or not. Thanks, 101.175.138.28 (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)History of Eastern artHistory of Asian art – – Less Westocentric name, matching modern terminology. The article covers all of the Near East aas well as the Far East (East Asia), which the current title may suggest is the only subject. This has been proposed before here. It should be combined with "merging" - actually redirecting - the useless stub Asian art to here. All that does is repeat the "Art of Asia" template links, but it gets over 20,000 views annually. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Binomial (polynomial)Binomial expression – for WP:NATURAL disambiguation and to avoid the awkwardness and redundancy of the current title. Sorry for opening this question back up again, but I think this would be an improvement, and this is not the same title suggestion that was proposed last time. It is clear that there was no consensus in favor of the previous suggestion of moving the page back to "Binomial" as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but my impression (as noted above) is that the title "Binomial expression" had general support in the previous move discussion. One bit of evidence that makes it clear to me that the mathematics meaning was misplaced as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in September when this article was called simply "Binomial", it was getting about 300 views per day, and with the disambiguated title it is now getting only about 7 views per day (1 view per day directly and about 6 views per day through the "Binomial equation" redirect). I now suggest merely improving the form of disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)'Hours...'Hours... – Restore previous move consensus from 12 September 2008. While single quotation marks are used for the album title on some artwork, they are not regarded as part of the album title name by the majority of the external references currently used (second most commonly used name was simply Hours, without any punctuation). Also, this article name should be similar to the related The Hours... Tour article. +mt 06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

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