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:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen.
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, as 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 04 August 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.

August 4, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Radical (chemistry)Free radical – the opening sentence says "In chemistry, a radical (more precisely, a free radical)...", and according to the last paragraph of the lead:  :Until late in the 20th century the word "radical" was used in chemistry to indicate any connected group of atoms, such as a methyl group or a carboxyl, whether it was part of a larger molecule or a molecule on its own. The qualifier "free" was then needed to specify the unbound case. Following recent nomenclature revisions, a part of a larger molecule is now called a functional group or substituent, and "radical" now implies "free". So clearly the scope of the article is about "free" radicals, not just any radical. Or perhaps free radical is the same thing as a radical in modern parlance. But either way, "free radical" is a legitimate and precise name for this article. And I think it's preferable to the current name because (a) I believe "free radical" to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this, and (b) it satisfies WP:NATURAL because the "(chemistry)" disambiguator is no longer needed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Caitlyn JennerCait Jenner – Looking at the new TV series I Am Cait this appears to be the more well known and chosen way to identify to the public in common. The "lyn" syllable doesn't belong in the page title any more than "William" belonged before. Ranze (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Janae Marie KrocKroc – This person is mostly known for being the author of the "Kroc row" which only involves the shortening of the birth Kroczaleski surname, now the legal surname of Janae Marie. Even though JM is now the legal name, this person is not predominantly known by this name so we should not use it. Much like professional wrestlers (ie Test (wrestler) not "Andrew Robert Patrick Martin") we should refer to them by their most well known moniker, which is simply "Kroc", which also happens to be brief and easy to spell page name. Ranze (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 3, 2015[edit]

August 2, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)KhadzhibeyKhadjibey – Seems like preferred English spelling in wikipedia. In any case dzh' is transliteration from Russian, ie indirect borrowing -M.Altenmann >t 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC). -M.Altenmann >t 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PAGASAPhilippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration – This is the full title of the organization, which the acronym PAGASA stands for. According to the history,[1] it was moved from the longer title to its current one because "no one likes how long it is". Frankly, not liking something is not relevant to why MOS:ABBR was written. I feel that this page belongs at the longer title, keeping in mind that this is still an encyclopedia. Or that at least a discussion is necessary to obtain other editors' opinions on the matter. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Zombi (2012 video game)ZombiUWP:COMMONNAME. Should have used the game's original name instead of the name of the game's port. In addition, Zombi was not released in 2012. It is going to be released in 2015, so the current page name is not really appropriate. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Center for Medical Progress (political organization)Center for Medical Progress (pro-life organization) – While a parenthetical note on the title of this article makes sense for disambiguation purposes, the current parenthetical note "(political organization)" seems inaccurate, imprecise and/or non-neutral to some Wikipedians. This proposed change reflects the fact that the organization does not self-describe as a political organization but as "a group o citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances" and "concerned about contemporary bioethical issues that impact human dignity, and we oppose any interventions, procedures, and experiments that exploit the unequal legal status of any class of human beings" [1], as well as the fact the article belongs to Category:American pro-life organizations and not Category:Political organizations, and resembles other articles in Category:American pro-life organizations much more than the ones in Category:Political organizations. The Center for Medical Progress appears to have only been framed as "political" by those opposed to its pro-life/anti-abortion ethical views who regard apparent advance knowledge of the videos by some pro-life Republican politicians as making the group itself fundamentally "political" [2]. Supporters of Center for Medical Progress seem to see it as a pro-life nonprofit whose citizen journalism initiative is primarily meant to expose possible illegal activity by Planned Parenthood and by for-profit companies that deal in fetal tissue, and influence public opinion via the media [3]. Using the label "(pro-life organization)" in the title seems perfectly clear for disambiguation purposes, is equally as concise as "(political organization)" and would make the title consistent with the group's self-identity and this article's actual categorization in the structure of Wikipedia. Elizdelphi (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

August 1, 2015[edit]

July 31, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Greco-Punic WarsSicilian Wars – This page was moved without discussion. Its current title is completely unknown outside of Wikipedia. "Sicilian Wars" is at least encountered, albeit more often in lowercase form ("Sicilian wars"). If there is a better proposal, I'm all for it, but the current title is not an improvement on the old. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Hit & Run AlbumHITNRUN – The name of the album was reported incorrectly by the cited source and the source has since changed its information (still cited by the wikipedia page) to reflect the true name of the album: HITNRUN. Rockguitar (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Smoke + Mirrors (Imagine Dragons album)Smoke + Mirrors – The new title already redirects here. This article is the only topic with the name "Smoke + Mirrors" (with a plus sign, instead of the word "and" or an ampersand). A person typing "Smoke + Mirrors" would be looking for this album instead of the metaphor or other topics on the disambiguation page. There is no need for unnecessary disambiguation if all it does is making the article title unnecessarily long. sovereign°sentinel 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Obstetrics (Midwifery)Midwifery – The term "obstetrics" refers to the medical speciality concerned with pregnancy and childbirth, while "midwifery" is the profession concerned with assisting women in the peripartum period. See Oxford definitions here and here, and Merriam-Webster definitions here and here. Obstetricians are not midwives, and midwives are not obstetricians. Kwekubo (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Symphony No. 2 (Mendelssohn)Lobgesang – The article should be moved to the proper title "Lobgesang" (or alternatively "Hymn of Praise"), as it is the original title given by Mendelssohn. For the rationale, see the article's text, recently amended by me. Mendelssohn intended the work as a symphony-cantata, but never had intentions to have it count as one of his symphonies. The posthumous naming "Symphony No. 2", introduced in the old Mendelssohn complete edition decades after his death, had mere editorial reasons. The modern scientific literature has dropped counting the "Lobgesang" as a symphony, cf. Mendelssohn-Werkverzeichnis (2009). Also modern sheet music editions normally give the title as "Lobgesang" (sometimes quoting "Symphony No. 2" as a subtitle), cf. e.g. [20], [21], [22]. Of course, "Symphony No. 2 (Mendelssohn)" should remain to redirect to this article, as the work is known this way on a number of CD releases. FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Woot (disambiguation)Woot – Given the popularity of the slang term w00t, I cannot see the article for the company that is currently residing at the article name Woot being the primary topic. (In fact, the company article almost looks like blatant advertising, but that's a discussion for another day.) In fact, there may even be a possibility that W00t could be the primary topic (and then it would either be moved to Woot or Woot would become a redirect to W00t); however, my vote goes to moving the disambiguation page to the base title since the company seems to be the first thing that appears when I search the term "woot" on search engines, but it is rather apparent that the company's name came from the term "w00t" given that the company was founded after the term was supposedly invented. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Melange (fictional drug)Spice (Dune) – Spice. Dune. The two go together like salt and pepper, peaches and cream, Garfunkel and Oates. My spellchecker doesn't even have "Melange" in it, so it and I are either illiterate or we just missed this name, even after long ago reading the book and watching the film. Thought of putting this up for a requested move after a discussion at Robsinden's talk page where, after a lifetime of ignorance, an editor finally told me what Spice is made of (Am I the only one who didn't know!)! Randy Kryn 2:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lauren Platt (singer)Lauren Platt – Only two topics, and one of them is a minor character in a barely notable film - coupled with the fact that the actress who plays her doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I think the real-life Lauren Platt would be pretty surprised if she saw that we don't think she's more notable than someone of that description. Unreal7 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Post-it noteSticky note – "Post-it note" is a trademark and, while sometimes used generically, it's my impression that people usually refer to them as "sticky notes". See a Google Ngram presentation of the relative frequency of use of the two terms in a corpus of books. "Sticky notes" is consistently found from year to year to be used more frequently than "Post-it notes", seven times as often in the latest year for which the site gives data, 2008. A comparable result obtains from the singular forms of the two terms. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Crocodile clipAlligator clip – The current name is a specific subtype, not the generic. There is no question as to the frequency of the terms -- alligator is massively more common. – tooki (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Leonor Telles de MenesesLeonor Teles – The current title is half in current orthography and half in archaic orthography (complete archaic would be Telles de Menezes). Most sources nowadays use current orthography, just as any modern source would for any name really (spare exceptional cases, of whom this article's subject is not). Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shrew (archetype)Shrew (stock character) – This article, since development away from a WP:DICDEF stub in danger of deletion, is principally about the stock character and literary motif of the shrew. No reliable sources have been found after almost two months suggesting this is an "archetype" (except in the one definition of that word that is synonymous with "stock character or literary motif"). As "archetype" is most often used with much more restrictive meanings, that RS do not apply to this topic, it should be moved to an more accurate one, consistent with other stock character types.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Centennial (disambiguation)Centennial – It is unreasonable not to redirect to the disambiguation page, since there are several meanings for this word. Redirecting to Century is arbitrary and does not allow of the alternative options. Furthermore the disambiguation page already exists and is well-populated with options. Zeamays (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Maryland Route 61Canal Parkway – The Maryland Route 61 designation is unsigned and is only used internally by MDSHA while the road is known in signage and by the general public as the Canal Parkway. Therefore, per WP:UCN I feel the title should be changed to reflect the common name used by the general public rather than an internal designation. Dough4872 05:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Law of holesWikipedia:Law of holes – The article seems to be little more than a dictionary entry and brief etymology. Further, it seems to be used more as a wikipedia essay than as an encyclopedic article as evidenced by having no mainspace links (all are talk or wikipedia space links). After the move, I don't think cleanup will be a problem as there are less than 50 pages that link here so I don't see that as a problem. Wugapodes (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)GainGain (electronics) – I find it a bit astonishing that the electronics term is the primary topic when the use of the term in "Gain (accounting)" seems just as notable, and the primary use of the word "gain" in search engines returns results for "Gain (detergent)". There seems to be three topics tied for an attempt at the primary topic spot, and none of them win, which would default with the disambiguation page being moved to the ambiguous title so that the reader can determine for themselves which subject they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Blew (EP)Blew – This is the only most notable (see my comment below in the discussion) topic on Wikipedia by this title. If necessary, a hatnote can be added to the top of the article directing the reader to the disambiguation page Blow, but I don't see that being necessary myself. Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cannock Chase German war cemeteryCannock Chase German Military Cemetery – It would be better if the the title of this page was Cannock Chase German Military Cemetery as this is the actual name of the cemetery (see the name on the carved plinth that stands at the entrance, as show in the article). Also the change would avoid confusion with The Cannock Chase War Cemetery, which is a completely separate cemetery located a few hundred meters away from this cemetery. Forscher scs (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)GzaGZA – Let's follow reliable sources, and MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME which clearly apply to the name here, since the overwhelming consensus of the moniker is all-caps. Also in the recent case of RZA being changed from Rza after much controversial debate, I think it sets precedent and needs a closer look. I am not talking about changing the name for the sake of acronyms nor backronyms, but purely off trademark and reliable naming conventions alone. The same as SAT is neither an acronym or backronym, yet the trademark permits us to use all caps for it's stylizing. The same rule should apply here. The name is also widely used in the article in all caps, so why would the title be different stylizing? That does not make much sense. GZA is a trademark name, the MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME apply here, and the overwhelming reliable sources and use in American print and music is proof as such. I can't find any Google results instances where the name is not spelled with all caps, either, which is a clear indication of Naturalness and Precision. Let's portray the name the right way, and not incorrectly due to some misprints. And please do not keep using WP:ALLCAPS as your opposing argument, as that is getting to be old fast. Let's not ignore the proper naming convention of this artist and portray it correctly. Wufan10304 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 20:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Śuṅga EmpireShunga Empire – The primary and consistent name for this article is now Shunga Empire (which is currently a redirect to this page). The use of IAST in the title, while accurate, is unnecessary and inconsistent with the naming conventions employed for articles on other Indian empires. The IAST spelling is, in any case, prominently displayed in the article's lead. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Europa MissionEuropa Multiple Flyby Mission – There are two names for the mission used by NASA; the Europa Mission, the name used by NASA in media releases (1, 2), and the Europa Multiple Flyby Mission, the name used in official documents and material by NASA (1, 2). I want to start a discussion on what the title of this article should be named, since both names are rather predominant; the Europa Multiple Flyby Mission is the official name of the mission, while "Europa Mission" is a suitable title simply because it's a better known name for the mission. Should the article be kept or moved to Europa Multiple Flyby Mission? Philip Terry Graham 06:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)João Pessoa, ParaíbaJoão Pessoa – This article was under the title João Pessoa for eleven years (2003-2014) until it was renamed to João Pessoa, Paraíba in an undiscussed move. The city is undoubtedly the primary topic associated with this name. João Pessoa Albuquerque, the politician after which the city was named, is almost completely unknown in Brazil nowadays. See also the previous topic by Treisijs. —capmo (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Collier (Pre-Raphaelite painter)John Collier (painter)
    *Per WP:NC, the title should be "no longer than necessary" to identify a subject and distinguish itself from other subjects. Someone who searches "John Collier" will see different artists and having "(painter)" as a disambiguator is adequate enough to distinguish this artist from others. "Pre-Raphaelite" is a redundant descriptor. It would only make sense to disambiguate it like that if there were others with that name known primarily as a painter. *No-one else listed at John Collier is notable primarily as a painter. John Collier (caricaturist) may have done some of his illustrations in paintings, but he's not primarily identified as a painter. Paintings seem to be just one format that he did his illustrations. The Oxford DNB identifies him for being notable as a "satirist and caricaturist", not as a painter. And even if all his works were paintings, he's notable as a satirist/caricaturist and paintings were merely a form to express this unlike this article's subject, who is notable for the artwork of the paintings themselves. Spellcast (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Race (human classification)Race (human categorization) – "Classification" implies a classifying system, but much of the article demonstrates that there's not anything systematic about it, and that quasi-systematic attempts at it have been mutually inconsistent. It is clear that it's categorization, which doesn't imply anything systematic. I think "classification" lends a false veneer of credibility to an idea that has been rejected by the sciences (physical anthropology, zoology, genetics, etc.) as a social construct, a cultural fiction. The present name is both a WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problem. Oh, and "human classification" is also confusable with "social class"; a disambiguator that introduces a new ambiguity is a failure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BurkinabéBurkinabè – Either use the correct French diacritic (grave accent) according to the Burkinabè state (source / source) or the unaccented English Burkinabe (source). The current form with the acute accent is the preferred form of the French state (source) but that should not be relevant in articles about Burkina-related topics in an English-language encyclopedia. Here are Google Books results but make sure to click through to the book images; the grave accent doesn't always show up in the Google text even if it is used in the book. The consensus here should ideally also be applied to other pages using this term as well. —  AjaxSmack  03:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas → ? – Precedent: Move of WP:Don't be a dick to WP:Don't be a jerk, which didn't even involve any issues relating to WP:BIAS against women. The message of this essay (don't engage, or enable others to engage, in "entitled" demands to get one's way, especially through threats to quit the project) is important, but it offends (I've caught heat for even mentioning it) for the sole reason that its title and a few bits of its wording are pretty much the same thing as having this be at "WP:BITCH". There has to be a way to express this without being misogynistic, when Wikipedia's main point of criticism in academia and the press is a hostile editing environment for, and poor coverage of, women.[29][30][31]   I detest unwarranted "political correction" and picking at "microaggressions", so if I find this troubling, it's probably inappropriate in an encyclopedia project. It's a PR and WP:Editor retention problem. It also defeats the point of the essay, which (as with WP:JERK) is intended to reduce strife, not generate more of it. The name no longer makes sense anyway, since its referent, WP:Don't feed the trolls is now WP:Deny recognition. Update since relisting: WP:Don't be high maintenance has been suggested by several commenters. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [Revised and re-launched; it wasn't showing up in WP:RM the first time for some reason. 06:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC). Updated. 06:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)]
  • (Discuss)TagalogTagalog language – per WP:NCLANG, longstanding consensus, consensus in the last move request, and discussion in the previous thread. Wouldn't be such a mess if closing admins would base decisions on community consensus and WP guidelines in the first place. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Frame of a vector spaceFrame (linear algebra) – As defined in this article, a frame requires an inner product space, not just a vector space. One possible solution would be to rename the article to frame (inner product space), but I think a better solution is to name it frame (linear algebra), which is a name of the field of mathematics in which this topic arises. The page that already exists at that title provides little information beyond disambiguating between "frame" and "k-frame", which is already done by the hatnote at the top of this article. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC) J. Finkelstein (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Revision controlVersion control – * general Google search for software "revision control" gives me About 392,000 results * Google Books search for software "revision control" minus common fodder - About 982 results - after clicking through the last pages - Page 56 of about 891 results * general Google search for software "version control" gives me About 1,990,000 results * Google Books search for software "version control" minus common fodder - About 1,210 results - after clicking through the last pages - Page 75 of about 981 results * general Google search for software "source control" gives me About 904,000 results * Google Books search for software "source control" minus common fodder - About 942 results - after clicking through the last pages - Page 52 of about 827 results The oldest book I found mentioning this was: * United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1962). "version+control" NASA SP. Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration [available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.] p. 47. For software projects, it is routine to use version control for both pre-release and post-release deliverable systems.  (ed: likely republished source dating error, please ignore --Joy [shallot] (talk)) For other two terms I couldn't find anything else from the 1960s that was specifically about software - it was interesting to see false positives from electrical engineering documents and later NASA documents that talk of revision control of themselves. So I'd move the article to that title, because it's a bit more generic, clearly most popular and apparently the oldest, in accordance with WP:AT. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC) -- Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shopping (song)Shopping (Ryan Bang song)WP:SONGDAB: a new Korean-language Youtube by a lunchtime comedian should not be squatting on the (song) spot as if the English-language "Shopping" songs by Pet Shop Boys, Barenaked Ladies and Paul Weller do not already have mentions on relevant album articles. Instead Shopping (song) should redirect to Shopping (disambiguation) for mobile users looking for the older and more long-lasting English-language "Shopping" songs. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Malformed requests[edit]

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^