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
Shortcuts:

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page[edit]

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

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

  • To list a technical request, go to the bottom of this section that you are reading right now; edit the subsection Uncontroversial technical requests; insert the following code at the top:
{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|reason= <!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move it to the Contested technical requests section.

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

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, 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 30 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[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. 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]

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

August 30, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Corallus caninusEmerald tree boaWP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. Each of these (very pretty) green tree snakes has a well known and unambiguous common name, so these common names should be their article titles. Both of these articles were moved from these names seven or eight years ago by the same person, who justified the moves on the grounds of consistency. I suggest to revert those moves in the name of the well established Wikipedia article titling policy to prefer the use of common names. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Python AutomobilePython (car) – The common name of this topic is surely not "Python Automobile", especially with a capital "A". I submit this as a formal RM rather than simply moving it because I think someone might have a better idea for the destination name. "Python (automobile)"? "Python (sports car)"? "Python (Ford prototype)"? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Python sebaeAfrican rock python – This very well known snake (one of the largest few snakes in the world by both weight and length) has a well-established and unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. The suggested destination name already redirects here, and always has since it was created in 2007. As best I can tell, the article has never yet been moved and no prior formal move discussion has occurred. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 29, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)CamgirlWebcam model – Those working in this occupation are more commonly referred to as "webcam models" than "camgirls" (see amount of Google search results for each name). "Webcam model" is also gender-neutral, unlike "camgirl", since women aren't the only ones who do this job. Also, the only people who can legally work as webcam models are adults, and it does not seem very encyclopedic to me to be calling adult women "girls". Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gangsta.Gangsta. (manga) – I can't believe the decision from previous discussion was overturned per move review. If the period can't be removed, at least just add "(manga)" beside it. I'm not gonna use crystal ball as an excuse in favor of further disambiguation. However, I won't let the current title stay as is and be inconsistent with Janet (album), Melody (Japanese singer), and other similar titles. Alternatively, you can vote to replace the period (.) with "(manga)", id est "Gangsta (manga)", but that would be overturned again. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Terror Inc.Terror (character) – This article has more information on the central character of the series rather than the comic book series itself, so this content should be moved into its own separated article on the character. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Leo FrankTrial of Leo Frank – The article is not about Leo Frank but an incident in which he was a central figure. Sources vary on which title they use, some use "Murder of Mary Phagan", which is the title of a two part TV docudrama: The Murder of Mary Phagan, others use Leo Frank's name in variety of titles: The Prosecution and Persecution of Leo Frank, The Leo Frank Case, The Lynching of Leo Frank, The Leo Frank Trial, The Trial of Leo Frank, The Celebrated Case of Leo Frank, etc, some use both names: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank. A Google search throws up a variety of titles, only one of which appears to use just the Leo Frank name - and that is our Wikipedia article. While the article gives some background info on Leo Frank, the main focus is on the murder, trial, and the aftermath - it is the event that is notable, not the person. Per WP:CRIME and WP:ONEEVENT we write about the event not the person, unless there is sufficient material to have a standalone article on an individual involved in the event, or if it is the person rather than the event that is notable. In this article it is clear that it is the event that is notable. WP:NCEVENTS gives some guidance on how to name an event article where there isn't an existing agreed name. As the main historical focus is on Frank Leo it would be inappropriate to name it just after Mary Phagan, though some consideration could be given to "Murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank"; other possible titles include: "Trial of Leo Frank", "Leo Frank case", "Lynching of Leo Frank". I wanted to set up this discussion without a suggested name; however, experience has shown that without a suggested name folks may not end up agreeing on a name, and the default close would then be to the current title, so I have suggested what I feel is a neutral and factual title, and one which is used by a good number of sources. Other suggestions are welcome. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kingdom of GermanyRegnum Teutonicum – See the above discussions. The majority of editors appear to oppose the current title Kingdom of Germany. There is, unfortunately, no clear and undisputable term for the subject that is used in all sources alike. Translation issues make it particularly complex. Several questions have been raised: *Was there strictly speaking a "Germany" back then (instead of Germania)? *Was it truly a "Kingdom"? *Was it "German", "Teutonic", "Deutsch" or "Germanic"? *Isn't this just East Francia? Mary Fulbrook writes for the Cambridge University Press in her A Concise History of Germany (pages 12&13): "...Germany is probably unique among modern European states in having a name derived not from a tribe or territory, but from a spoken language." This is important to us because it stresses Germania was the land of the Germanic-speaking peoples (meaning all Germanic tribes) while Germany is the state that still exists today. Fulbrook further notes that there is no consensus on when the latter was first established, and that doubt about the existence of a united Germany is to be noted up until even the late Middle Ages (~14th century) when the name deutsche Lande ("German lands") was still most common. I've found that the original and most precise name for the subject is regnum Teutonicum ("reign of Teutonics"). Fulbrook uses "Regnum Teutonicum; so does Timothy Reuter as seen in his The Perception of the Past in 12th Century Europe and his Beyond the Regnum Teutonicum; so does The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages as seen here; and as a notable extra, on the German wiki the name is also used. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vineta-FestspieleVineta Festival – Being in the English Wikipedia, English titles should have preference unless there is a really good reason not to use them (i.e. a translation would be too clumsy or the German term is widely known in English anyway). See also WP:CRITERIA and AfD recommendations. This ought to be uncontroversial, but just in case it isn't - doing a formal RM. GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Where Are U NowWhere Are Ü Now – Throughout the article the song is referred to with the "ü" and on iTunes and other music websites. I don't know the best way to get my point across, but this is the official title. 64.134.220.25 (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SkhugSahawiq – Sahawiq is a Yemeni condiment and this is the correct spelling of the Arabic name. The article is heavily influenced by an Israeli point of view, as this condiment was popularized in Israel by its Yemeni minority, and this gave rise to the Israeli mispronunciation "s'hug", probably due to the fact that Hebrew is usually written without vowels. Either way, the origin is Yemeni and there's no reason to give undue weight to a borrowed version of this name. Google confirms that Sahawiq is more common than "skhug", despite the difference in between Israel and Yemen in terms of presence across the web ([13] vs [14]). 158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)José Ángel TasendeAngeliño (footballer) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, he is known as Angeliño and Manchester City's website confirms that. About the IP users, they are reverting because they're American/English people and they don't use the ~ that much. But that doesn't make his name less correct. MYS77 02:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 28, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Other red cell antigens → ? – I'm not sure what the new title of this article should be, but whatever it is should not start with the word "Other". Titles starting with the word "other" that are not the official title of the subject, such as this article, are confusing since it leaves the reader to ask "Other than which (insert subject here)". And also, this article has only 1 incoming link (not a heavily-linked title whose only incoming link can be replaced), so I also recommend that the leftover redirect from this title be deleted after the move. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Manuel De LandaManuel DeLanda – Manuel DeLanda is the spelling used in DeLanda's books 90% of the time. See this, only two of his earliest books, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History and War in the Age of Intelligent Machines use the De Landa spelling. Note: move desired by Mohanbhan but has been contested by Lancini87; the preceding rationale is Mohanbhan's; I am neutral in the matter. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Python regiusBall python – This very well-known (esp. as a popular pet) snake species has a well-established unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. It does also have another common name ("royal python"), but "ball python" seems to be its most common name (and also seems more objectively descriptive than "royal python"). Certainly "ball python" is more common than the current name, "Python regius". (There may also be an WP:ENGVAR issue here, as the article was apparently originally written in American English, and "ball python" may be more common in American English than in other varieties.) The suggested destination name is already a redirect to this article, and it was the original name of the article until someone moved it in 2007 while commenting that "Scientific names should be used for page names on biological organisms whenever possible to avoid confusion". That edit summary statement seems contrary to current Wikipedia article titling guidelines, which recommend the use of common names. Just after the move in 2007, there was an RM discussion of the same suggestion that ended with no consensus but "no prejudice against relisting". Now I am relisting it, and suggesting to revert that move. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gilaki peopleGilak peopleGilaki is our language. In Gilaki and other Iranian languages, "i" is a suffix that is like "ian" in English. So, Iran is a country and a nation-state name and if we add "i", we have "Irani" that means Iranian. And Gilak, is a nation or ethnic name and if we add "i" we have Gilaki that is a language. So, we call ourself in north of Iran, Gilak and this article must changeto new title: Gilaks our Gilak people. And, Gilan is a province in Iran that have two main nations: Gilak and Talysh; so both of Gilak people and Talysh people are "Gilani". And some of Talysh are living out of Iran and out of Gilan and some of Gilak people are living in Mazandaran province too. Therefore I think "Gilani People" is not a suitable name. (I am admin in Gilaki wikipedia and here is my profile.) Varg (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)New Mexico chile → ? – The merger discussion regarding merging in Fresno pepper failed, but everyone mentioned renaming this article with MOS:COMMONALITY of the use of chili vs chile being one reason given; What to rename the article was not decided as in a deleted comment Kehkou disagreed with a purposed name and brought to further awareness the dual usage of this page currently, being the New Mexican chili pepper group and chili peppers in New Mexico. Falconjh (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eunectes murinusGreen anaconda – This very well known snake (the largest in the world by weight) has a well-established unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. Although it does also have other common names, "green anaconda" seems to be the most common, and certainly more common than "Eunectes murinus". The suggested destination name is already a redirect to this article, and always has been since its creation in 2006. This article was originally at Green Anaconda and was moved here after a brief comment in mid-2008 about article naming consistency, as recorded in Talk:Eunectes murinus#Move proposal. (There was also a quickly reverted move back to that name in February 2009.) —BarrelProof (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)James, brother of JesusJames the Just – The article was previously and correctly titled 'James the Just' which is in line with Church teaching and historically actuate. Apparently a group of 5 people with heretical views is enough to revise history on Wikipedia. I believe standards on Wikipedia should be better than this so people coming here can actually learn factual information rather than going away believing something which is false blatant heresy. Nice try guys. NewYork1956 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)HHP-8Bombardier/Alstom HHP-8 – The convention for locomotive articles on Wikipedia is to be named MANUFACTURER MODEL, or sometimes OPERATOR MODEL, depending on which is more contextually appropriate (steam locomotives tended to be so named). Compare EMD AEM-7, Siemens ACS-64, and PRR GG1. For whatever reason this article has always been located at HHP-8, but it's an anomaly that should be corrected. Most reliable sources mention both Bombardier and Alstom as builders, so I think Bombardier/Alstom HHP-8 makes more sense than Bombardier HHP-8. See e.g. Cudahy, Solomon, and Popular Science. I don't see this as a controversial move but the article's been at this location for ten years so I thought some discussion was warranted. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Malcolm ChaceMalcolm Greene Chace – The Chaces were a very influential family. The name Malcolm Greene Chace was used for three generations. The tennis player's son and grandson (Malcolm Greene Chace Jr and Malcolm Greene Chace III) were directors of the Berkshire Hathaway financial firm; they deserve Wiki articles themselves, and I'll probably write them this winter. Kzirkel (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)D. J. WhiteDJ White – On White's official NBA playerfile (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201591/), it states "DJ White" with no periods or spacing, much like JJ Hickson. Most other sources (basketball-reference.com and RealGM.com) states both White and Hickson as D.J. White and J.J. Hickson, respectively, but since Hickson's NBA playerfile states "JJ Hickson", matching his Wikipedia page, I think White's playefile and Wikipedia page should match as well. --Miamiheat631 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Springfield, QueenslandGreater Springfield, Queensland – There is a suburb called Springfield, one of 6 within Greater Springfield. This article is titled for the suburb but incorporates information for the whole development. They need to be separate articles, moving this one will enable the suburb article to be independently developed. Kerry (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Buttou – In modern Japanese "tou" is the common word for tower, while "Buttou" (buddhist tower) more specifically refers to the kind of structures in this article. 124.39.78.114 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

August 26, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-KhwārizmīAl-Khwarizmi – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is redundantly too long to even type, and not as common as the proposed title. The shorter, "Al-Khwarizmi" is the COMMONNAME as per RS and even the article itself, and already redirects to the article. As for the diacritics, Google Books search shows "Al-Khwarizmi" and "Al-Khwārizmī" are both common in English language books, though "Al-Khwarizmi" (without diacritics) tends to be more common in the titles of books written about him. Furthermore, as per the policy on WP:MOSAR, standard transliteration is preferred over strict transliteration. "If there is no primary transcription, a standard transliteration is used". As per the table on WP:MOSAR#Long vowels, a standard transliteration should not use diacritics; only a strict transliteration may use diacritics. (Titles of other articles using standard transliterations also do not use diacritics, including Al-Biruni, Masjid al-Haram, etc.) Hence our title of the article using standard transliteration should not use diacritics either. Khestwol (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GFriendG-Friend (band) – The word "GFriend" can still be a short-formed slang of "Girlfriend" to some people, which could be confusing to some readers. Also, since they are a group with a commonly known name of "Girlfriend" or "Gfriend" for short, it's best to move this page as titled in their official Facebook Page. And since they are a group, to avoid further confusion to the commonly used word, the word "band" is needed in the title. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Banjari languageLambadiLambadi is the official term used to classify the language by Glottolog, SIL International and ethnolog, though the Banjaras themselves refer to the language as Goar-boli. The two books mentioned in the reference section of the article also use Lambadi or Lamani (1. Boopathy, S. investigation & report in: Chockalingam, K., Languages of Tamil Nadu: Lambadi: An Indo-Aryan Dialect 2. Trail, Ronald L. 1970. The Grammar of Lamani.) The 1961 and 2001 Censuses of India too use Lamani/Lambadi. So there is absolutely no justification for the use of the title "Banjari language". Support: for the reasons stated above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cheryl ColeCheryl Fernandez-Versini – She has been known as this name for some time now. Looking at Google results, typing in "Cheryl Cole", the first suggestions are now for "Cheryl Fernandez Versini". Other than when a fellow X Factor judge accidentally called her Cole, I'm not aware that any other media call her this name. 5 albert square (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Return of A.J. RafflesThe Return of A. J. Raffles – Per WP:SPACEINITS, our MOS prescribes a space between consecutive initials in personal names. As this is an artistic work, this may not apply here, but the addition of the space may help towards WP:CONSISTENCY. So, looking at sources, the original book cover seems to show no spaces at all (even between the "J." and the "R") and styles it The Return of A.J.Raffles, [21] yet the publisher's own website favours the space in text, [22] and a Google search comes up with various permutations, so there appears to be no "official" styling on this. For these reasons, we should defer to our own MOS in this case, the same style preferred by the Random House website. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eustachian tubeAuditory tube – TA preferred synonym. A move to a commonly used title that readers can actually understand and are familiar with ("auditory") and a move away from the current eponymous title. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 25, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Open Text CorporationOpenText – While legally the company name is "Open Text Corporation", WP:NCCORP recommends omitting the "Corporation". And further, per WP:COMMONNAME, I think it's preferable to use "OpenText" without the space, which appears in all of the company's marketing, including logo, and many (most?) third party references. See also: talk page section #Name -- intgr [talk] 10:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dadu KonddeoDadoji Konddeo – This should have been reverted using technical move, but since there has been a long discussion on it, creating this request. The current name seems to be a "new" name based on WP:OR that -ji is a WP:HONORIFIC and thus should be removed. A google search barring wiki mirrors yields only 30 results overall and zero results on Google News and Books. The earlier name "Dadoji Konddeo" has results in Google books as well as news [23] and 27,200 hits overall (barring wiki mirrors). WP:COMMONNAME is evident.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Baal-hamonBaal Hammon – Per WP:USEENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs. User:Cynwolfe was well-meaning with his move here but the current placement is incorrectly capitalized, hyphenated, and spelled. You can't use vanilla Google for stuff like this, but Google Scholar shows that * #1): Baal Hamon is preferred to Baal-Hamon, both are preferred to Baal-hamon, and * #2): Baal Hammon may have added an m but is used 3× more often in the scholarship (presumably to keep the vowel correct). Ngram concurs. Our own article already uses Hammon for most of its running text (including in the lead immediately after the current infelicitous form) and I'll patch up what's left.  — LlywelynII 01:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Germanic neopaganismHeathenry (new religious movement) – I would like to propose that this article, which is currently titled "Germanic neopaganism", be renamed to "Heathenry", or perhaps "Heathenry (new religious movement)". First off it must be noted that this is an issue that has been raised before here on the talk page: back in January 2012 the question was raised by User: Kim Dent-Brown, who suggested a move to "Heathenism (contemporary)". At that time the motion was defeated due to a lack of consensus: there were four declarations of support to four declarations of opposition. Nevertheless, I think that this is an important issue and requires a return visit, and would also like to invite other editors with no connection to the subject to offer their judgement on the basis of the evidence presented.
    My argument for the change is threefold. First, I would argue that the term "Germanic neopaganism" is inappropriate for usage here at Wikipedia because it is a term that is used very rarely outside of this actual Wikipedia article itself. Having recently spent a fair bit of time expanding this article using almost all of the academic studies yet published on the subject, it became apparent to me that "Germanic neopaganism" simply isn't used to describe this new religious movement in any of them. Typing the term into Google basically brings up this Wikipedia article and very little else that we could deem to be reliable. Basically, it doesn't appear in any significant way in the reliable, third-party academic literature. Furthermore it does not seem that it is a term that is at all widely used within this religious community itself, with many practitioners actually expressing their dislike of the word "pagan" (and thus "neopaganism") due to its Latin origins.[1] As User:Stormkith pointed out above, none of the three major U.S. organisations for this religious movement use the term "neo/pagan" on their websites. So if this term isn't being used either by practitioners or scholars studying the movement, why is it being used here ? Without trawling through the lengthy history of this article, I think that there must be a suspicion that it is a name that has been devised (or at least chosen) by a Wikipedia editor themselves without recourse to reliable sources, and thus may come under our restrictions surrounding the use of Original Research. All in all, it's a totally inappropriate term for us to be using.
    My second point is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement within the community itself. While it is clear that different sections of the movement favour different terms (Odinism, Theodism, Asatru etc, each of which conveys information about a group's specific regional affiliation and socio-political bent), it is nonetheless apparent that "Heathenry" is a rapidly growing term, having become the dominant word within the United Kingdom and seeing its usage rapidly expand elsewhere.[2] It is, for instance, the term generally used by the U.S.-based website The Wild Hunt, which is the foremost news service for the wider Neopagan movement, and when an insider-led statistical study of the Germanic-oriented Neopagan movement was made in 2013, it was called The Heathen Census because its creators recognised that "Heathen" "is the term with which most adherents would identify.".[3] So while not every practitioner of this broad and diverse religion is using "Heathenry", a greater number of practitioners are using it as an over-arching catch-all term than any other. It's the closest thing that this religion has to a label like "Christianity" or "Hinduism".
    My third, and perhaps the most important point here, is that "Heathenry" remains the most widely used term for this religious movement among those academics who have published studies on the movement. To cite just one example, in her recent study of the religion in the U.S., American Heathens (Temple University Press, 2015), the sociologist Jennifer Snook states that she uses that term over any others "because it is inclusive of all varieties" of this religion in a way that no other word is.[4] (Clearly, she didn't even think of using "Germanic Neopaganism", a designation that she doesn't even mention). Fundamentally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus should follow academic conventions (rather than adopt fringe terms or engage in original research) – there's a reason why academic, peer-reviewed sources are described as the best form of sources in our Reliable Sources policy! Related to this is the fact that many non-academic reliable sources also refer to "Heathenry" when discussing this religious movement: see for instance this BBC Religion page (where, it should be noted, "Germanic Neopaganism" isn't listed as a synonym at all).
    I appreciate that there are some valid arguments against the use of "Heathenry" as a title for this article. On the one hand, some practitioners – particularly those who self-designate as Odinist – simply don't like it, and they might not be happy with the change. On the other, there is the fact that the term heathen (which has been used in the English language for over a millennium) has long been used in a pejorative sense, initially to apply to those who continued practicing pre-Christian belief systems in the Early Medieval, and more recently in application to irreligious people. There is thus the potential for a little bit of confusion to arise between "heathenism" as a pejorative term and "Heathenry" the new religious movement. However, it will be abundantly clear to any reader who gets as far as the first few sentences of this article that it is not referring to heathenism as a pejorative but is discussing a new religious movement. Let's give our readers some credit for having a little basic intelligence and being able to differentiate between two very different things.
    Ultimately, I do think it fairly apparent (in my opinion at least) that the positive aspects of an alteration to "Heathenry" far outweigh the comparatively minor negatives of using it. At the same time, I think that we lack any firm ground to stand on in using "Germanic neopaganism" in the way that we currently are, due to a chronic lack of support from academic sources, reliable third-party sources more widely, and even the religious community itself. Admittedly, I don't think that we are going to get total consensus on this issue as there will probably continue to be some editors – particularly some of those with a deep personal and emotionally powerful connection to this religious movement – who simply don't like "Heathenry", but I do believe in putting this argument forth anyway and trying to ensure that enough editors (including practitioners, interested outsiders, and those with no connection to the subject whatsoever) recognise the logic and the benefits behind the proposed change and offer their Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Drama filmDrama (genre) – "Drama film" falls under the larger category of "Drama" as a genre. When someone describes a film as a "drama," they mean that it is largely serious and emotionally turbulent; when someone describes a TV show, radio show, etc. as a "drama," the same meaning is being used. This is because the word "drama" can be used to mean a broad genre of fiction: the opposite of "comedy." (This is also different from the use of drama to mean the mode of presenting a story through a live performance.) BTW, "Drama (genre)" already exists as a simplistic stub that can overwritten, since I'm the only one, so far, who's edited it since redirecting it away from "Drama" just today. – Wolfdog (talk) 20:44, 25 August 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) --Relisted. AjaxSmack  02:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Number 57 09:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bongbong MarcosFerdinand Marcos, Jr. – The previous RM did not take into account the factors discussed with the initial RM from a few years ago. "Bongbong" is this person's nickname or so to speak and is not his WP:COMMONNAME. Might as well move Joseph Estrada to Erap or Charice Pempengco back to Charice. When checking the sources, the name mentioned is either "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." or "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr." Almost never "Bongbong Marcos" alone. Quite unlike Bill Clinton, whose real name "William" or "William Jefferson Clinton" extremely rarely appears in the news ([24]~1500 results as opposed to 2,1 million for his common name) The editors in the initial RM brought forward the fact that Google searches for "Bongbong Marcos" got higher numbers than "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." It should be noted however, that these articles note his name as "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr.".[25] It makes sense to keep the article at "Bongbong Marcos" if "Ferdinand" isn't even mentioned. The encyclopedic value alone of keeping the article at his full, non-nickname should be merit enough to move. Even if editors feel this article belongs at its current title, a wider consensus should have been obtained. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Webbs Mills, New YorkWebb Mills, New York – The Geographic Names Information System calls this place "Webb Mills" (though it gives "Webb's Mills" and "Webbs Mills" as variant names), and the name appears thus on the relevant USGS topograhic map. On the other hand, the local volunteer fire department does seem to call itself the Webbs Mills Volunteer Fire Department. Both versions get roughly equal numbers of Google hits. The relevant rule at WP:NCGN is: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American usage to the official name." So I guess the question is whether colloquial usage does significantly differ in this case, or whether the "Webbs" version is an older version that has persisted in at least one organization name but has been superseded in common usage. Deor (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

August 24, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)OskanondonhaSkenandoa – The form "Oskanondonha" is a tentative modern reconstruction not recorded in contemporary sources; see the #Name section for some details. Of the other significant spellings, "Skenandoa" is by far the most common on Google Books (with about 806 results) apart from "Shenandoah", which is impossible to disambiguate from all the other uses of "Shenandoah" (particularly the Shenandoah Valley); and anyway there seems to be some agreement that "Skenandoa" more accurately represents the original pronunciation of his name than "Shenandoah". As an example of some other spellings: Skenandoah returns about 344 results; Schenandoah about 317 results; Skenando about 311 results; and Schenando about 249 results. In addition, "Oskanondonha" has only 34 results on Google Books, and its acceptance on Wikipedia is an example of hypercorrection. Use of the spelling "Oskanondonha" on Wikipedia seems to derive entirely from the book Oskanondonha: The Life of a Great Oneida Leader (1999), and many of the "Oskanondonha" Google Books results may in fact take their spelling from the Wikipedia page itself, since the majority were written on or after 2008, when this page was first created and named "Oskanondonha". Finally, "Skenandoa" clearly fulfills the guidelines of "recognizability" and "naturalness" better than Oskanondonha. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Po (Kung Fu Panda)Po Ping – the use of his surname per WP:NATDAB negates the need for parenthesis, and is also briefer. He has been Mr. Ping's adoptive son longer than he has been a kung fu master so this is preferable to Master Po, which is needed as a disambig with the Kung Fu TV series. 64.228.91.73 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Swiss cheese → ? – According to the current primary topic itself, it seems that leaving the current primary topic at the ambiguous title could be seen as systemic bias, given that this topic seems to only exist in American English-speaking use. Another topic on the disambiguation page that could be called "Swiss cheese" is Emmental cheese, which could possibly be the more common use of the term "Swiss cheese" throughout other parts of the world; this cheese also seems to be where the current primary topic received its name. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Court → ? – From research, what I am seeing is that it looks as though the subject currently at the ambiguous title Court and the subject at Court (royal) are both as significant as each other historically. Also, the current primary topic only averages about 2x the amount of page views than Court (royal) does. For this reason, the disambiguation page should probably be moved to the ambiguous title so that readers can try to figure out which article they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

August 23, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss)Hurts Like HeavenHurts like Heaven – Per WP:COMMONNAMES, inaccurate titling or capitalizing should be avoided, even when commonly used. Many sources uppercase like as if... it's not a preposition or any other preposition (but an exceptional preposition). I was able to find news articles lowercasing like: Gigwise, RadioTimes, The Northern Echo, and GMA Network. However, these are all I can provide; as said, many sources uppercase like. We can't argue over a mere capitalization; in fact, like Talk:Smells Like Teen Spirit and Talk:Do It like a Dude (specific) and archived discussions at WT:MOSCL (general), such a discussion would lead to nowhere and typically no consensus, especially when WP:NCCAPS normally encourages lowercasing short prepositional words with no more than four letters. This leads to one question: shall we treat "hurts like" like either a verb + preposition or a phrasal verb (exempli gratia Count On Me and Come On Over)? If the former, then WP:NCCAPS should be enforced, even if it appears bureaucratic, which Wikipedia is not. But Wikipedia is not democracy either. If the latter, then... I can't put my words into it. Of course, the whole message would be ignored, and then capitalization on a preposition like like would be the only main thing in someone's minds, thus leading this discussion to nowhere, like it always has been... George Ho (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nuttin' But LoveNuttin' but Love – The previous discussion was closed as "no consensus", despite two !supports and one !oppose. Again, "but" should not be uppercased because it's often either a preposition or conjunction in every phrase or sentence, even in titles. In this case, it's a preposition. I wouldn't be sure whether uppercasing it would make it accurate or inaccurate, especially when WP:COMMONNAMES discourages commonly-used but inaccurate titles. However, WP:NCCAPS wants "but" lowercased, so we must abide to it. Note that the exact title should be different from Nothing but Love. George Ho (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)My Mother (film)Mia Madre – Title in the English-speaking world is Mia Madre, so the title used at Wikipedia should also be Mia Madre - not the literal translation My Mother, which is not used. See the press releases for the Cannes and New York film festivals, not to mention the reviews.[28][29][30] Film Fan 01:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SupinfoSUPINFO – Naming convention. The name of SUPINFO has to be written all in uppercase. In the version 7.4 of the graphic charter of SUPINFO, The common name of the university has to be written SUPINFO all in uppercase, it can be append "International University" or "The international Institute of Information Technology". [31] --Jitrixis (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GeococcyxRoadrunner – Currently redirects here and is in the lead, while Geococcyx was not mentioned in the lead until I added it a minute ago. Our pages on the two species use "roadrunner", which is clearly the common name. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cape Verde-type hurricaneCape Verde hurricane – The prevalence of "-type" being included in the name of this particular species of storm is considerably lower than that of the name sans it, both in technical literature (e.g. the article's own current references) as well as usage in general. Froglich (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
  • (Discuss)76 (Phillips 66)76 (gas station) – the current article title is silly. It's an analogy to titling an article on a movie called "17" "17 (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs)"; or an amusement park called "16" "16 (Six Flags)"; or, had Microsoft chosen to brand "Microsoft Edge" as "Windows 20", titling the article for the program "Windows 20 (Windows 10)". Georgia guy (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Step-stone bridgeStepping stones – or some other such title. As noted by the blog Language Log and in the above discussion, the current title is not the common way of referring to the subject in English—there isn't any evidence this exact phrasing was ever used before this article was created. It's pretty clear this should be moved to some actually used term. —innotata 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Canadian Broadcasting CentreCBC Broadcast Centre – Per the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website (see here) the Toronto production facility is called by and referred to internally and publicly as the CBC Broadcast Centre not Broadcasting Centre. Therefore I request this page be changed accordingly. YborCityJohn (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GoudaGouda, South Holland – For me, there is a bit of an WP:ASTONISH-ment factor here that the primary topic for "Gouda" is not Gouda cheese. I mean, I didn't even know that the name "Gouda" in "Gouda cheese" came from this city. In fact, due to the fact that Gouda and Gouda cheese receive almost literally an equal amount of page views, it seems that others seem to share this opinion. For this reason, I believe that the disambiguation page Gouda (disambiguation) should move to the ambiguous title Gouda so that the reader can determine if they are trying to look for the city, the cheese, or any of the other various options on the disambiguation page that are not really contenders for the primary topic designation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) (Changed move request slightly given the argument for the cheese being the primary topic via evidence below [but not presented be me.]) Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ShungaShunga (art) – I would like move Shunga (disambiguation) here and move Shunga to Shunga (art). This is because the Shunga Empire is a notable topic which is referred to by the term Shunga as well. The "Shunga" in Shunga Empire is a transliteration of the Sanskrit शुङ्ग; it is also transliterated more accurately to "Śuṅga" or when these diacritics are dropped (which is often), to just "Sunga". For notability, please compare: # Google Search: Shunga (Empire) (582,000 results) vs Shunga (art) (506,000) # Google Books: Shunga (Empire) (34,300 results) vs Shunga (art) (11,000) N.B. These searches compare all three Shunga (empire) spelling variants restricted by the Empire/Dynasty keywords against variants of Shunga (such as Syunga and Shun'ga) restricted by Japanese/Erotic. (Edit): The search stats above were updated on Aug 11 to include the Syunga and Shun'ga spelling variants. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FordlândiaFordlandia – Fordlandia was an ill-fated boondoggle of Henry Ford, a well-known American industrialist who seemed to pay little attention to his critics and his diacritics. A few cited sources do seem to use the unusual "â" when discussing his project, but most do not – indeed, many sources don't even seem to mention the possibility of a diacritic (a documentary film about the place, National Public Radio, Failure Magazine, a book on the subject, the Henry Ford Museum, the Michigan Historical Center, etc.). I don't know the full story of the "â", but it does not seem to be used by most reliable sources. Regardless of all that, the primary topic for Fordlandia is certainly not the obscure 2008 sixth studio album by an Icelandic composer of minimalist neoclassical electronic drone music – and the article for the album acknowledges this by talking more about the project by Henry Ford than about the project by the composer who created the album. This is true regardless of the apparent contrary opinion from the now-site-banned Kauffner, who moved the article to its current name without discussion on 19 October 2011‎. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 5 August 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. -- Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ Strmiska & Sigurvinsson 2005, p. 128; Harvey 2007, p. 53.
  2. ^ Blain 2002, p. 6; Gardell 2003, p. 31; Blain 2005, p. 181; Davy 2007, p. 158.
  3. ^ To quote from this website: "This survey was originally called Worldwide Ásatrú Census 2013. When I contacted practitioners from different communities around the world for their input, they all agreed that "heathen" was the most general term – and that it is the term with which most adherents would identify."
  4. ^ Snook 2015, p. 9.