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.
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 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]


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

Undiscussed moves[edit]


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]


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.

  • 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]


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 01 December 2015". 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.

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 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. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given. When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions.

To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> after the initial request. This can also be done by using {{subst:Relisting}}, which signs the relisting automatically. The RMCD bot uses the new timestamp to relist the entry on this page.

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. One option is 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.

December 1, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Face-to-faceFace-to-face (philosophy) – See Face to Face. To me it seems obvious that this concept of philosophical morality is not the primary meaning of "face-to-face". I was tempted to just move this without discussion, but the article has been at this name for a long time, and also perhaps someone else can suggest a better disambiguating title. The current title should probably point to the dab page that is currently at Face to Face. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

November 30, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Southern AlpsSouthern Alps (New Zealand) – There is no clear primary topic, since the Southern Alps of Europe are just as notable as those of New Zealand; so "Southern Alps" should be the disambiguation page. The above decision was reached in record time and was a "technical close", which has not allowed for a full discussion or a worldwide view. Even if we accept the fairly basic statistics above, the result is insufficient to claim the New Zealand range is the primary topic over the Southern Alps of Europe. However, I have re-run the stats myself and found that they are quite unreliable. Moreover, the fact that the sources frequently use the term "New Zealand's Southern Alps" or "Southern Alps of New Zealand" indicates that disambiguation is needed. Bermicourt (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)OFI CreteOFI Crete F.C. – The article is about the football team of OFI Crete. OFI Crete has also Basketball and Volleyball teams. This page about the football team must be moved to OFI Crete F.C. and the article OFI Crete should refer to multi-sport club. See also the Greek wikipedia about this issue Odythal (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC) --Odythal (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)VanathirayampattinamVanathirayanpattinamA couple recent IP edits seem to be asking for a move. Vanathirayampattinam has 4130 Google results. Vanathirayanpattinam has 1400 Google results. Attempting to refine the search a bit more... Vanathirayampattinam, Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu gives 26,900 hits. Vanathirayanpattinam, Ariyalur, Tamil Nadu gives 1150 hits. I seem to find from those searches that the village itself is often spelled with an 'n' and the area of the village with an 'm' but I'd like more eyes on this. The original source is archived at [1], but that page doesn't have either name. (I believe the controls at the top gave that information, but they don't seem to work in the archive.) —PC-XT+ 01:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Occupation of MeccaConquest of MeccaApprove as nominator WP:COMMONNAME There are six accessible sources in the article, five of them describe the event as "Conquest of Mecca" and one describes it as "Fall of Mecca", none describes it as an "Occupation", the article's current name. Sources in support of "Conquest of Mecca": Bernard Lewis, Lt. Gen. A.I.Akram, Abu Dawood, Ibn Hisham, Abu Dawood Sources in support of "Fall of Mecca": Francis Peters Sheriff (report) 18:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 29, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Saint PeterSt. Peter – You don't call a doctor like Mehmet Oz, Doctor Oz, you call him Dr. Oz. You should call title a Saint with the short form title, St. NapoleonX (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ottoman general election, 1920Grand National Assembly election, 1920 – Our article Ottoman general election, 1919 calls it (rightly) the last Ottoman election (with two citations). The election of 1920 was not for an Ottoman parliament, so although it took place in what was still the Ottoman Empire, it was not an "Ottoman general election". It was an extra-legal election for a Grand National Assembly with plenary powers—nominally acting to uphold the Ottoman state, but not itself a creation of it or a part of its constitution. The proposed title is clear, unambiguous and not at all misleading. Nor does it imply anything about the status of the Ottoman Empire or Turkey. Srnec (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FastFAST – As per the RM discussion at Talk:Slow (disambiguation), evidence is available to show that speed is the predominant long-term significant meaning of the word "fast", and most of the entries disambiguated on this page correspond to the use of "FAST" as an acronym or abbreviation. So this page should redirect to the "speed" page, just like "slow". As for the following unanswered post from two years ago:

    "Why is this at FAST and not Fast? Many of the entries are not acronyms, including two people's names I am adding. It seems to me that putting it under all caps violates the WP:EN naming convention. . ."

Well, shouldn't the best thing we can do is split this article off into separate dab pages for Fast (disambiguation) and FAST? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • (Discuss)Araya (disambiguation)Araya – A Venezuelan city is currently the primary topic for Araya, but I don't see a justification for it. The article is very small, and the dab page lists multiple other meanings, some unrelated. So it seems to me a proper disambiguation strategy would be more appropriate. Midas02 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Muhammad IqbalAllama IqbalApprove as nominator: The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. Careful analysis of references present in the article reveals that subject's common name is "Allama Iqbal". There are eleven mentions of "Allama Iqbal", ten mentions of just "Iqbal" and six mentions of "Muhammad Iqbal" thus as per WP:COMMONNAME, article title does not have to be the person's given name, it can be anything what most reliable sources use the title for the subject, thus please move the page to "Allama Iqbal", Iqbal's most commonly used name. Sheriff (report) 05:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Infant visionDevelopment of the visual system – I propose we move this article to a more comprehensive 'development of - ' style article that includes development in infants and adults as it is expanded. I think this article is too large to be merged into Visual system but that it's unnecessary to have a split all the way to "Infant vision" at this stage. A 'Development of-' article can act as a central focus for this information as the article is developed. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Roman Catholic theologyCatholic theology – The contents of Catholic theology also had discussed a few critical difference between eastern and western theology that were not covered in this article. The Catholic theology page has several problematic phrasing, such as not distinguishing Roman Catholic from Latin Catholic. Seeing that neither page has grown significantly since the above discussions, I merged the shorter article into this larger one (currently named "Roman Catholic theology") to cover this gap. I would further propose this page be renamed "Catholic theology", if simply to match the Catholic Church article. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fillet (redaction)Filleting (obfuscation) – Not a single source in the article proves that this technique has been observed or actually is called "fillet". I don't have authoritative literature by the hand to prove it either, but it seems to exist. However, WP:COMMONTITLE should be the verb's gerund here: "filleting" rather than "fillet". Found a single source that supports my expectation: [3]. Finally, the disambiguator "obfuscation" is closer to descibing what filleting actually represents. I'm fine with any reasonable outcome, though, if others have access to more relevant literature. PanchoS (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

November 28, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Years Past MatterYears past Matter – The other discussion focused on whether to treat "past" as a preposition. However, the result was "confusion is deliberate." In the light of recent requests at Talk:Four past Midnight, we must revisit the issue of treating "past" as either a preposition or any other part of speech. If "past" in this title is the preposition, then it should be lowercased per MOS:CT, especially when "past" is a four-letter word. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marian and Holy Trinity columnsPlague column – Several reasons: #The proposed name is shorter and simpler #Whatlinkshere includes a lot of inlinks of the form [[Marian and Holy Trinity columns|plague column]] #according to the article itself, columns were dedicated to various saints, not just Mary and/or the Trinity. #Most Google Scholar links for Holy Trinity Column and Marian Column refer specifically to Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc and the Marian Column in Prague Old Town Square, whereas "Plague column" is about as common as those two put together and has a wider variety of referends jnestorius(talk) 14:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Queen Elizabeth University Hospital CampusQueen Elizabeth University Hospital – The addition of 'Campus' to the title is not required, the pre-existing name covers the entire site, including landscaping and retained clinical units. The name 'Queen Elizabeth University Hospital refers to the entire site in much the same way a university does not feature 'XYU Campus' in its title. The name Queen Elizabeth University Hospital is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the facility based on various sources from news reports, official sites and in-facility documentation. GRA (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

November 27, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)People Like Us (film)People like Us (film) – "like" is a preposition and should be lowercased. Uppercasing "like" makes it look like a verb. "People like us" can have two or more meanings, but only one meaning is intended. I don't think the title intends to use "like" as a verb unless authors prove that "like" is a verb of the title. The previous RM had support just because sources tend to uppercase "Like" without knowing or caring about grammar of the title of the film. If people like us, people like us. If people like us like to uppercase it, then other people like us like to lowercase the word. Enough puns or tongue twisters, the current style makes the title confusing. George Ho (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PantomimeBritish pantomimeWP:WORLDVIEW: reserving a well known word for interpretaion only as pertains to certain English speaking countries, at the expense of the majority of same, plus everyone else who uses English as a major international language, is not neutrally encyclopedic. See previous unsettled move request from 2007! SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)80 Days (2014 video game)80 Days – The 2014 video game '80 Days' should be the primary article. According to guidelines on determining a primary topic, it has higher relevancy: It has far higher wikipedia traffic statistics according to (averaging around 100 views per day compared to around 25 for the 2005 game). According to Google News results, it features several times when searching for "80 Days", whereas the 2005 game doesn't feature at all. In main search results with a personal bias switched off, it appears in the vast majority of results, except for the first, and some news articles about a broadway production. Additional notes: the company's official page for the 2005 game states that it is no longer available for sale, making it less relevant. The 2014 game has won and been nominated for numerous awards and has a score of 88 on Metacritic (iOS/android page), while the 2005 game has a Metacritic score of 58. (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1st Mini Album (Taegoon album)1st Mini Album – Moved twice by the same user, using tbe same rationale, but the user has not attempted to create the article it is being disambiguated from first. If the title is ambiguous a notable article must be created first, not preventively. Also, when the title's article was restored it entered on the controvertial, so it hadn't had to be moved again without discussion. – © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

November 26, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Pingtung CityPingtung – it redirect to article there is no ambiguity as the county is always known as Pingtung County not Pingtung alone. – — ASDFGH =] talk? 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taitung CityTaitung – it redirect to article there is no ambiguity as the county is always known as Taitung County not Taitung alone. – — ASDFGH =] talk? 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Miaoli CityMiaoli – it redirect to article there is no ambiguity as the county is always known as Miaoli County not Miaoli alone. – — ASDFGH =] talk? 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hualien CityHualien – it redirect to article there is no ambiguity as the county is always known as Hualien County not Hualien alone. – — ASDFGH =] talk? 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Davit GogibedashviliDavid Dephy – He is best known in English sources by his English pen name David Dephy. His real name Davit Gogibedashvili should be the first bold link in the lead section followed by "known by his pen name David Dephy". This is per MOS guidelines on article naming and lead section follows normal convention in thousands of articles. GreenC 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GjakovaDjakovica
    *Google search: Đakovica (240), Gjakova (262), Djakovica (371) *Google Books: Đakovica (93), Gjakova (201), Djakovica (217) The previous name request was faulty. Always go to the last page. Note that Đakovica is spelled Djakovica in Romanization (which would mean that Đakovica/Djakovica has almost double hits). Gbooks hits since 1965: "Đakovica" (44), "Gjakova" (70), "Djakovica" (75). Since 2010, I got "Đakovica" (36), "Djakovica" (38), "Gjakova" (41). No huge gap, which was erraneously claimed previously. "Djakovica" has been suggested by some in the discussions, and indeed is the most popular and neutral version. Zoupan 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

November 25, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Osaka Restoration Association (1st)Osaka Restoration Association – The Osaka Restoration Association (大阪維新の会) is a regional party based in Osaka that is contesting the upcoming mayoral and gubernatorial elections. It has continued to exist at the regional level despite coming under the "umbrella" of the national level party named the Japan Restoration Party in 2012. The national party split last month and a new national party Osaka Ishin no Kai (おおさか維新の会) was formed. The Japanese name of the new party is pronounced the same as the regional party, but is written slightly differently. The English-language press does not use an "English sounding" name for the new party, see specifically the news of the party forming and more recently this article.
    Despite Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat's rationale for moving this page to its current location and creating a disambiguation page at Osaka Restoration Association, the new national party is not a "new iteration" of the regional party. The regional party has continued to exist all this time despite the article not being updated. A disambiguation page for Osaka Restoration Association (regional) and Osaka Ishin no Kai (national) is not required because their English names are not the same. A hatnote differentiating them is sufficient. Therefore this page should be moved back to its original location, Osaka Restoration Association. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Battery lifeBattery life (disambiguation) – This title is commonly linked to from other pages as battery life in the modern context generally means "how long a device can work on a single charge of its rechargeable battery", rather than "How long a device can work over the life of its primary cell". Therefore this page should redirect to Rechargeable battery with a hatnote pointing to the use with regards to the primary cell. Additionally, battery life is distinct from battery lifetime, and the hatnote should include such a mention. Saying this, I am even considering whether this disambiguation page should even exist, according to WP:TWODABS. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)RepulsionRepulsion (film) – The current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status isn't daft (unlike some other media products squatting on the baseline); this is unquestionably a great and famous 1965 film, ...but... I wonder how many under the age of 60 have heard of it? It is 50 years ago and Repulsion (magnetism) Repulsion (genetics) etc. etc. are real existing topics in books and articles. I went through and only found 7 mislinks to the various science topics (which I fixed), but it looks as though other editors have been catching them and fixing them before. By WP:ASTONISH it's not going astonish anyone looking on their iPhone for the film to see Repulsion (film), in fact it will help. Wheras anyone looking for the various science meanings, and articles, would do better not being sent to the film. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reading (process)Reading – One of the two ways to determine a primary topic is long-term significance, for topics with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", even if another topic by that name gets viewed more often. That's why, to give just a few examples, Apple is a fruit and not a tech company, Pink is a color and not a singer, and Avatar is a religious concept and not a movie. For this reason, I propose that the topic with the greatest long-term significance when it comes to Reading is, well, reading. It is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Haredi JudaismUltra-Orthodox Judaism – We need the assistance of an Administrator in order to move this page's history. Talk page was already successfully moved. The explicit reason: Haredi Judaism sounds like a 4th Judaism stream along with Orthodox+Conservative+Reform, which it isn't. Bostonnine (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Al-Hilal (disambiguation)Al-Hilal – Now "Al-Hilal" football club is not only a club in Saudi Arabia in all over the world. The club which in Saudi Arabia is very famous. However, Only known by the people whom lived in Asia. Have you got any permission for that club is very famous in the world? It just not all the people known that football club whom lived in Africa. WKDx417 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)English languagesAnglic languages – "English languages" is an unclear and confusing title. "Anglic languages" is the only halfway decent alternative. Counter to previously aired claims, two cites in the article now prove the currency of the term, even though it is rarely used – but so is the concept. (I don't think any of the terms is anywhere close to ideal, but elimination leaves only "Anglic", as "Insular Germanic" is even rarer and hardly clearer. It's essentially a choice between bad, poor, and meh.) Note that Glottolog uses the minimal variant "Anglian". Also, other articles linking here from infoboxes keep "Anglic" for clarity. Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Roller skatesRoller skate – The naming convention is clear on this subject (WP:SINGULAR), plurals should only be used when the singular is never used (e.g. scissors, trousers or handcuffs); where it is essentially impossible to talk about a scissor or a trouser or a single handcuff. Yes, roller skates are usually referred to in the plural, however, it is perfectly fine to talk about a single skate (i.e. "My roller skate lost a wheel.") and often appropriate from an encyclopaedic POV (i.e. "The first roller skate was effectively an ice skate with wheels replacing the blade."<--an actual sentence from the lede of Roller skates). as for Inline skate, in the lede of that article, the first sentence is "Inline skates are a type of roller skate used for inline skating." I think it is clear that "roller skate" (singular) is often used to refer to this device (the lede of both articles prove this), and therefore as per WP:SINGULAR the correct form is the singular. the move of "Inline skates" to "Inline skate" follows logically from this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)JIRAJira (software) – Per MOS:TM / MOS:ALLCAPS ("avoid: TIME, KISS, ASUS"): Lots of organizations and brand names like to use all-caps name styling to try to make themselves stand out from the crowd and appear more important. It's an annoying practice that Wikipedia should generally not follow. Please see prior comments on Talk page. This is not an acronym – just purely promotional styling. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Case Closed (manga)Case Closed – The main manga article should still be named Case Closed as that is the predominant search result. The other uses should be renamed back to the Case Closed (disambiguation) article. This was moved recently without proper discussion and requires a technical move to restore it. – AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


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