Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.) Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

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

When not to use this page[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

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

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

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move[edit]

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 17 August 2017" and sign for you.

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

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

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

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

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

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructions[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.

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 supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 54 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

August 17, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Adam's BridgeRama's Bridge – A major reason given prior to this that a move should be opposed was that Sri Lankan Tamils preferred Adam's Bridge, but I can confirm that my entire social circle uses Rama's Bridge, and that even the Tamil page prioritizes Rama's Bridge too. It's already been established that North Indians and Sinhalese use Rama's Bridge. Lankandude2017 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)E (mathematical constant)e (number) – ...or perhaps e (constant). Phrase "(mathematical constant)" is unwieldy, and as far as I can tell this is the only article using it; disambiguator "(number)". is well-attested in e.g. Category:Integers. "(mathematical constant)" does not add anything particularly specific that "(number)" does not, and the article itself starts with The number e is... WP:NCDAB recommends that If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)". No such user (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Starfire (Koriand'r)Starfire (Teen Titans) – I do not believe there are any other articles regarding fictional characters that use the subject's alternative name or secret identity as a disambiguator. However, when there is more than one fictional character with the same name created by a comics company, I have seen disambiguators used which refer to the team or comic book which the subject is most associated; for this subject, the most associated subject would most likely be Teen Titans. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)La cumparsitaLa Cumparsita – The second sentence of the lead paragraph describes it as "among the most famous and recognizable tangos of all time". It is equally recognizable in the English-speaking world where it is rendered using English-language orthography. Even the music sheet image appended to the article depicts the title as "La Cumparsita", not "La cumparsita" and it should be noted that the music sheet was published in the Spanish-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopyFourier transform infrared spectroscopyMikhail Ryazanov‎ (talk · contribs) has changed the page name from "Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy" to "Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy" citing MOS:HYPHEN. I propose to change it back. I think that whatever MOS:HYPHEN says is trumped by WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I have seen it written "Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy" in countless books, articles, vendor websites, course notes, etc. etc. I have never seen it written "Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy" as far as I can remember. Wikipedia needs to write the term the way everyone else writes it. So I propose to move the page back. What do other people think? (Note: I opened this conversation on 11 August 2017 but didn't add the template until the 17th.) Steve (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16, 2017[edit]

August 15, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ching HaiThe Supreme Master Ching Hai – 1. When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). And "Supreme Master Ching Hai is the name of the subject that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. 2. Ching Hai can be meant to be anyone's name, a name of a place, a name of a thing, and even a phrase of certain meaning in Chinese Language. You will find all different kinds of information related to these two words "Ching Hai" not related to the subject depicted in this article while searching on the internet. And therefore, due to ambiguity in the name "Ching Hai", I suggest "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the most adequate title name for the article. Orwuck (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mohorovičić discontinuityMoho discontinuity – With all due respect to the Croatian researcher who first described this feature, in English it is simply called the "Moho" discontinuity. WP:COMMONNAME says this should be the main article namespace. Would have done this myself but the page I wanted to move to has an edit history of two edits. KDS4444 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Amazon.comAmazon (online retailer) – At this point, it's not just referred to as "Amazon.com" anymore. Today, Amazon encompasses a variety of products made by Amazon themselves, putting them on par with companies like Apple and Google and becoming more than just that online retailer we all knew in the 1990s and 2000s. I realize I put "online retailer" in parentheses, but I cannot think of a better description to put in there; please comment if you think something else should be in the parentheses. But the bottom line is: ".com" has to go. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Old Tom GinOld Tom gin – The alcoholic beverage term "gin" is not ordinarily capitalized, and "Old Tom Gin" seems like merely a generic name for a type of gin, not the proper name of a specific product. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 14, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)ICF InternationalICF (company) – Since 2016, ICF no longer goes by the name ICF International, so I propose we move this article to ICF (company). As evidence, here are two articles from this summer in the nearest major paper to the company's HQ, The Washington Post, referring to the company as "ICF": [2][3].) I am aware that a previous move request in April was declined, however, that request was to move the page to ICF. Since ICF is a disambiguation page, it's completely understandable that this article can't be renamed simply to "ICF". With that said, it looked like some editors were in favor of ICF (company) and I'd like to see if that would be considered an appropriate move. An important disclosure: I am working on behalf of ICF through my work with Beutler Ink. Therefore, I will not edit this article directly (nor will I unilaterally move it) and am seeking other editors' input and assistance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Declan MurphyDeclan Murphy (jockey) – Move to make way for disambiguation. Not clearly the primary topic for the article title. There is also a Gaelic footballer and a fictional character with the same name which could be listed on the dab page Bcp67 (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HistoplasmaHistoplasma capsulatum – This page is about a species, H. capsulatum, not the entire genus which actually contains 5 species. One of the other less common species, H. duboisii is already a separate article. This redirect should be removed and the article should be restored to the H. capsulatum page. Medmyco (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tom and Jerry (mixed drink)Tom and Jerry (cocktail) – Per the current description of the subject we currently have on Wikipedia at Cocktail, as well as the current description of this subject per its very own article, the topic of this article seems to clearly be a "cocktail" in terms of how we have the term "cocktail" defined. Per the opening of Cocktail: "When used to refer to any generic alcoholic mixed drink, cocktail may mean any beverage that contains two or more ingredients if at least one of those ingredients contains alcohol.", meaning that per Wikipedia's definition, the subject of this article is a cocktail since it has at least one alcoholic ingredient. In fact, there are several other articles which use the disambiguator "(Cocktail)": Martini (cocktail), Manhattan (cocktail), Cosmopolitan (cocktail), Godfather (cocktail), Vesper (cocktail), Sour (cocktail), etc. Also, the used of "(mixed drink)" as a disambiguator has next-to-no precedence; the only article I could find that uses "(mixed drink)" as a disambiguator is Prairie Fire (mixed drink). Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 08:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PeriodinaneIodane – The article is about iodanes more generally (periodinanes are a type of iodane/iodinane) OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 10:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting DrStrauss talk 18:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 08:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 13, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Rey Misterio Sr.Rey Misterio – Misterio debuted in 1976 and performed for the majority of his career simply as "Rey Misterio". The suffix "sr" appears to have been added to distinguish him from his nephew, Rey Mysterio Jr.; however, Misterio did not use this suffix throughout his career. Moving the article to Rey Misterio will allow more direct linking. McPhail (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Western PunjabiLahnda – Partially reverting the undiscussed move from last year. The article is about a genetic group of languages that has been equally often referred to as Landa and as Western Punjabi. The latter term however has taken on a new set of meanings in the last decade or so, and can now refer either to the language group ( = Lahnda), or more broadly to the whole set of Punjabi varieties spoken in Pakistan (whether Landa or not), or narrowly to the Pakistani variety of Standard Punjabi (itself not belonging to Lahnda). This ambiguity has resulted in no end of confusion since the move, evident in the article's editing history. Just noting that I don't think it should be moved to either of its exact previous titles of Lahnda language and Lahnda languages (which it has oscillated between) – the former is a misnomer, the latter sounds awkward, and neither is common in current usage. – Uanfala 01:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

August 12, 2017[edit]

August 11, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Spot the DogSpot (puppy) – or Spot the dog. The character seems to generally be referred to just as "Spot", and the author calls Spot a puppy, not a dog. Please also see prior discussion on the Talk page. An editor commented in 2010 that "according to the books, he is a lovable puppy and is never once referred to as a dog". The Telegraph article uses "Spot the dog" (lowercase "d"), not "Spot the Dog", at least primarily, so when "dog" is used, it may be just as a descriptive identifier, not as part of the name of the character. Although the article says that the book series is called Spot the Dog (presumably by its publisher), I don't know whether that's really true or not, and I see no clear evidence of it (and don't think it necessarily matters). In any case, the character is better known than the book series and is found outside of the book series in television shows, etc., so I think the article should be more broadly about the character rather than just about the book series. When I look for books by searching for "Spot the Dog", I never find that phrase in the title of any book. That phrase is also not found in any of the television series titles, episode titles, home video titles, or music album titles. This Wikipedia article was originally named "Spot the dog" before an undiscussed move at 09:32, 17 July 2005‎ (UTC) without any adequate explanation. The person who moved it just said "Capitalisation" without explaining why they thought the other capitalisation was better. (Note that there is also a potential disambiguation issue with the Spot character in the Dick and Jane series, although I suspect readers are more focused on this Spot than that one.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SmilesSmiles (disambiguation) – The disambiguation page is a collection of comparatively obscure partial title matches, and topics with no Wikipedia article. I propose that the primary topic of "Smiles" is Smile, for which "Smiles" is both the plural and the third-person singular simple present indicative verb form. bd2412 T 18:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

August 10, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Australian survey, 2017 (Marriage) → ? – Should the title be changed? I think it's a bit clunky and usually referendums of this kind - though this is obviously not legally the same as a referendum or plebiscite - have [Jurisdiction name], [same-sex marriage referendum/survey], [year]. Given that what do people think of a change to either Australian same-sex marriage survey, 2017 or Australian marriage survey, 2017. I prefer the former option. Support one of these two options or make another suggestion or simply oppose. Jono52795 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

  • (Discuss)Alien: Resurrection (soundtrack)Alien: Resurrection (soundtrack) – Last hear's move request, although good faith, was factually incorrect. The film poster's billing block, which includes the official name of the film as registered with the MPAA, omits the colon. The film article has already been moved. This should be as well, but as the previous move is only a year ago, I didn't want to just leave it as a technical request. oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BM&F BovespaB3 (stock exchange) – As the article itself, and the main website for the exchange, says this stock exchange is now known as B3 and this appears to be the common name used by the financial community. I've not done this move myself (just created a redirect) as I'd like a second opinion or community input. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)T.K. MaxxTK Maxx – Procedural nomination; move discussion opened, but not as an RM, by another editor. The basis for the request is that the official name of the company is "TK Maxx" despite their logo. Original proposal follows this RM template.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GenderqueerNon-binary gender – See the previous attempt for a really great explanation. "Non-binary" is a much better "catch-all" term for the many varieties of non-binary genders. "Genderqueer" is a pretty controversial term, both for including the word "queer", and for only really applying to, like, one of the many. Also, "non-binary" is probably the most common term for this stuff to be used, and has reeeally overtaken "genderqueer" in terms of popularity (and neutrality). Like, other pages (like Legal recognition or Discrimination) literally use "non-binary" to refer to this exact page in their own titles. In the words of Trankuility, "Genderqueer is a controversial title for this page, possibly because of inclusion of the word queer, or because it is only one of a number of possible non-binary gender identities. Using a neutral descriptor such as "non-binary" may not be supported by a larger number of reliable references (per previous talk page discussions), however it may reduce that controversy and provide for the better selection of appropriate page content. Non-binary gender is currently one of a number of redirect pages pointing to Genderqueer. Alternative page names may be better than Non-binary gender." That just about sums it up. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tysons Corner, VirginiaTysons, Virginia – Name change to Tysons is now official and is used on various local websites. Tysons appears to now be the WP:COMMONNAME as well as the official name. Additionally, the relevant category is called Tysons, Virginia, so we should be consistent. Posting this here rather than CfD as I believe the category name is correct and this is not. However, if this is closed with consensus being to retain the current name, I will nominate that the category be moved. Smartyllama (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dies IraeDies irae – Latin chant incipits are not titles and do not use English-style capitalization conventions. The word irae is not a proper name and should not be capitalized in this instance. This is also consistent with other chant incipits with articles, such as Ubi caritas and Justus ut palma. Jchthys 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Monkey selfieMonkey selfie copyright dispute – To quote @TJRC: the only reason this article passes notability guidelines, "is not that a monkey took a selfie; but the resulting copyright controversy that ensued as a result of Slater's claim of copyright. The article itself is all about the dispute, as it should be." This proposal solves the problem. The original discussion can be seen here. Greg (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

  • (Discuss)William and Helen Martin Murphy Ziegler, Jr. HouseWilliam and Helen Ziegler Jr. House – Names of houses need not ape the style of their official nomination or registration documents (which also uses all caps on most of the name parts in this case). This house seems to be commonly named without the extra names in there, and the comma usage varies from no commas (in the New York Times), to two commas (in the Guide to NYC Landmarks, which also has the one-comma version in the index, just like the AIA Guide to New York City). The funky unbalanced comma in the official doc is exactly the kind of common grammatical error that led all grammar and style guides to propose dropping the unnecessary comma in the first place, and if we start to copy such nonsense we're doomed to never get to grammatically sensible titles. Better to just use wikipedia style, and good grammar, and commonname, and get it right. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bhaskar VarmanBhaskaravarman – Bhasakaravarman is the name of this ruler as per reliable sources. * Sailendra Nath Sen: Bhaskaravarman probably died about A.D. 650 … * Hans Bakker: His younger brother Bhāskaravarman became king … * Nayanjot Lahiri (The Pre-Ahom roots of medieval Assam, p.66): For instance, in the Nidhanpur copper plates of Bhaskaravarman (7th c.) … While Gait preferred Bhaskara Varman back in 1906, modern scholarly sources appear to prefer the singular Bhaskaravarman. — Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. EvertonFC13(talk2me) 23:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Piney WoodsPineywoods – The text of the article was changed today by SusanGriswold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The problem is, of the sources in the article that aren't dead links, I'm seeing a mix of Piney Woods and Pineywoods. Thus, I don't want to move the article (and have to unwind the move) until more eyes look into the situation. That said, if there's a quick outburst of sources that read Pineywoods and nobody opposing, I'm prepared to call this request off early and move the page boldly. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. EvertonFC13(talk2me) 20:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Theory of FormsTheory of forms – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 19:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Great Man theoryGreat man theory – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. This google ngram search shows significant majority for lowercase usage in books. Tony (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jam Filled TorontoArc Productions – Per discussion above, Jam Filled is not a successor company of Arc Productions; it merely purchased assets belonging to Arc. Jam Filled—or its parent, Boat Rocker–would need to separately meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG to qualify for an article. (At this time, it appears that neither qualifies.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gloucester cheeseDouble Gloucester – The cheese is never referred to as "Gloucester" cheese. Double Gloucester is a common cheese - see, for example, the page at http://www.britishcheese.com/doublegloucester and its right-hand column list of cheeses). Single Gloucester is a much more unusual cheese, probably deserving a separate article (it has Protected designation of origin status, for a start), or could be included as a separate section of a "Double Gloucester" article and mentioned in its lead. But "Gloucester cheese" is not the commonly used name of any kind of cheese in the UK. PamD 22:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Middle kingdoms of IndiaMiddle kingdoms of South Asia – The reason is very simple. Some Indian Wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudo history onto Wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. If this article is referring to the Middle Kingdoms of India, I fail to understand why Graeco-Bactria and Indo-Greeks are being mentioned here, when they literally have nothing to do with India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to Middle kingdoms of South Asia, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on Wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bronze Age IndiaSouth Asian Bronze Age – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Iron Age in IndiaSouth Asian Iron Age – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Santo Tomás, MenorcaSant Tomàs, Menorca – This article was created in 2012 as Santo Tomas, Menorca - with a copyright problem from a travel agency website which reviewer @VernoWhitney: kindly cleaned up 7 days later. However the name "Santo Tomás" is Spanish, while villages on Menorca are usually known in GBooks, GNews and en.wp by the local Menorquín variant of Catalan. Hence it should be Sant Tomàs (Catalan), of Es Migjorn Gran (Catalan), not "Santo Tomás" (Spanish). And this is reflected in current English travel guide books Sant Tomàs, Menorca about 521 English Gbooks results GBooks for the Spanish name reaps about 350, but when opened up the hit is not for the village (Catalan) but a hotel listing "ultra-modern Santo Tomás is the most lavish (tel)" - the Santo Tomás hotel uses the Spanish name, but the article is about the village Sant Tomàs not the hotel. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Prince Albert (disambiguation)Prince Albert – There does not seem to be a dominant primary topic among all Prince Alberts. The top two figures, Albert, Prince Consort and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, get about equal interest on Wikipedia[11] and in Google searches, except for spikes[12] due on one side to Albert of Monaco's accession to the throne (2005), marriage (2011) and birth of his twins (2014), and on the other side to the recent Victoria (TV series) (2016 and 2017) highlighting her romance with Albert Prince consort. Regarding the second WP:PT criterion, I do not see Victoria's husband as historically more significant than the late Albert I or the current Albert II, both rulers of Monaco over quite long periods of time. — JFG talk 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]


See also[edit]