Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
"Wikipedia:RFPM" redirects here. For the place to request the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
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 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]

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 25 February 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 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.

February 25, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ida Lewis (lighthouse keeper)Ida Lewis – Remove unnecessary disambiguation. Ida Lewis is currently a redirect to Julia Arthur, an actress born under the name of Ida Lewis. Being the birth name of the actress is not sufficient reason to keep this article at this current disambiguation title. After the move, I would place the following hatnote on this article, to wit: {{About|the lighthouse keeper|the actress born Ida Lewis|Julia Arthur}}. The hatnote on Julia Arthur would also need a slight tweak following the move. Safiel (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

February 24, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)U-procedure and theory UTheory U – Theory U by Otto Scharmer is notable, or more notable than the U procedure by Friedrich Glasl. Theory U is published in a separate book published in multiple languages, the U-procedure has been published by Glasl only as an internal paper of NPI, or as a part of a chapter in a book. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cruis'n (series)Cruis'n – Series article has the same title as Cruis'n (video game). The series article should be the primary term since WP:NCVGDAB states: "If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item." This series has 6 games (5 of them have their own articles). Mika1h (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hilton WorldwideHilton – As part of my ongoing work, I would like to move the article to the new official name of the company, as it announced a corporate name change - "Hilton Announces $1 Billion Stock Repurchase Program, Quarterly Dividend and Corporate Name Change" [13]. Please let me know if you have any questions. Valgetova (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Untitled Han Solo film → ?Untitled Han Solo film may give a false impression to those who are not familiar with the Star Wars franchise. It's technically incorrect to dub this as a 'Han Solo film'. Normally, we call a project 'Untitled Steven Spielberg film', 'Untitled David Fincher film', 'Untitled Martin Scorsese film' and so on. Han Solo is not the name of the director of this film. Thus I suggest re-titling it. Untitled Star Wars spin-off or even Untitled Han Solo spin-off would be appropriate. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Lauren Townsend (footballer)Lauren Townsend – Lauren Townsend is currently a redirect to the Columbine HS massacre, because it was the name of one of the victims; however, that Lauren Townsend doesn't actually have an article and doesn't appear notable. Since this is the only article by this name on Wikipedia, a hatnote will suffice. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vehicle doorDoor (car) – This article talks about car doors and makes no mention of bus/train/plane doors, therefore the title "vehicle doors" is misleading. Parenthetical disambiguation is consistent with Hood (car) and Trunk (car). — Train2104 (t • c) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Holden Racing TeamWalkinshaw Racing – Consenses at Talk:Holden Racing Team#Article name 2017, after 6 months, 3 editors for (Option 2), none against. Walkinshaw Racing was a standalone article, content has been merged into Holden Racing Team with the former currently a redirect to the latter, so may require an article merge to retain history. Not sure if this requires a different request path to be gone down. Impala27 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)William O'DeaWilliam O'Dea (freeholder) – Hi. I'm requesting that William O'Dea becomes the main disambiguation page. William is short for Willie (at Willie O'Dea - an Irish member of parliament) and I think it would be better to have the disambiguation page at William O'Dea. The current primary topic is a Hudson County freeholder and I don't think that's highly notable to become the primary topic. The other subject is an Irish republican who is known in Ireland. In short, I propose this page be disambiguated and the disambiguation page be at the main title. All the best, st170e 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Red bean pasteAdzuki bean paste – Although adzuki beans are called red beans, adzuki bean paste can be either red or white. A Korean dessert called baram-tteok, for example, is filled with white paste made from skinned adzuki beans. As the beans have red skin and white inside, the paste made of skinned beans are white. MaeveCosgrave (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HuguenotHuguenots – After all, this article is about a group of people. Moreover, virtually every version of this article in other languages uses plural like "Hugenotten" on the German Wikipedia for example.Ernio48 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)İznik potteryIznik pottery – This is a non-standard spelling of the term. The dotted capital İ is the town of İznik spelt using the modern Turkish alphabet. English-language sources on the actual pottery do not spell Iznik this way, they call it Iznik pottery. The dotted I spelling should just be a redirect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Æthelbald of WessexÆthelbald, King of Wessex – This name would be clearer, would conform with other articles such as Stephen, King of England and John, King of England. He is shown as "Æthelbald (d. 860), king of the West Saxons" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but other sources such as A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain and The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England have "of Wessex", and I think this would be clearer for readers than "of the West Saxons". If this move is accepted, I would suggest a similar change for other Anglo-Saxon kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)WBACHWBQX – WBACH has permanently gone off the air after 25 years of service.[16] It is now WBQX FRANK FM 106.9. The page should be named WBQX with a hidden search link for WBACH; not the other way around. It is confusing and misleading. The content needs to reflect the current situation. Maineartists (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Saartjie BaartmanSarah Baartman – Current and recent sources use the "Sarah" form of her name. Saartjie is the diminutive "nickname" form of the name, in the context of her history it amounts to patronising infantilisation. Referring to an adult with a childish nickname is also a common way to "other" a person (motivated by racism). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AtanaAtana (raga) – ‘Atana’ is in four or more languages with different meanings, probably all equally important. What an average Western scholar would know it as (so maybe also historical English usage, at least for classics & European language scholars) is an alternate spelling of Greek name/goddess Athena or a theorized ‘proto-Athena,’ used in some areas of ancient Greece, which I'd prefer over the raga and other usages if one language should have the main name, but the disambiguation page should become the main article. dchmelik (t|c) 05:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)2017 Kid Choice Awards2017 Kids' Choice Awards – main target was blocked by full protection from vandals for a longer time than asked for; information here is correct but it can't persist with an incorrectly named page title. I have no objections to this move at all (I've been trying without success to open up the proper name to semi-protective editing). Nate (chatter) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)McCain StadiumAthletic Ground (Scarborough) – Football consensus is to use traditional names, where one exists, rather than sponsored ones (e.g. City of Manchester Stadium or Almondvale Stadium). The ground was known as the Athletic Ground for the majority of its existence. I think that what has happened here is that the McCain name was a particularly early example of a sponsored ground name, in the UK a least; and in an earlier Wikipedia age, the article was created under the then-current name, when consensus on these cases probably hadn't developed. Jellyman (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Buddhist apocryphaPost-canonical Buddhist texts – The latest edit Special:PermanentLink/766494466 by SOHAN18 brought home to me the problems with this article's title. Although I am not an expert with regard to Mahayana Buddhism, in modern Theravada studies terms like apocrypha are hardly used anymore, scholars preferring post-canonical or vernacular instead, depending on the types of texts. Apocrypha implies a lack of authenticity, and might therefore go against WP:NEUTRAL. What is an authentic work and what not was usually a matter of debate in most of Buddhist history, and I doubt whether there ever were any works vehemently and unanimously opposed as was the case with the Roman Christian Church, from which the term apocrypha originates. Authenticity in Buddhism has usually been something which comes in many shades. Propose move as specified. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Soylent (food)Soylent (meal replacement) – Submitting another RM as suggested by the closer of the previous RM and by others (with no objection expressed in either RM). The product is primarily a beverage, not a solid food, and the alternative disambiguation term seems less likely to be confused with the food in the film and book. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)RV Farley MowatMV Farley Mowat – All current sources refer to the vessel as MV Farley Mowat, including court documents in relation to vessel seizure, and despite original classification as RV. Move had been proposed (see talk page above) and since no disagreement was referenced, page was moved as uncontroversial. Move was reverted almost immediately, so raising this here for formal discussion. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Al-SalamiyahSalamiyah – Most common English language usage: Google book counts: Al-Salamiyah, Hama 58, Salamiyah, Hama 146; news counts: Al-Salamiyah, Hama 60, Salamiyah, Hama 160. Originally created as Salamiyah, moved to Al-Salamiyah without discussion. Batternut (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)10 (number)10 – Number 10 is the primary topic for title "10", with similar arguments to the 19 articles (see previous discussions for 1 and for 2…9). The dab page 10 (disambiguation) doesn't need to move because it already points to a spelling variant Ten (disambiguation). This RM is not intended to set a precedent regarding what should happen with articles titled 11 to 100, which are currently either dab pages or legacy pointers to the years. — JFG talk 12:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chronica MajoraChronica maiora – The spelling 'majora' is a holdover from antiquated editions; the original spelling (already adopted on German and Latin Wikipedia) is 'maiora'. AndrewNJ (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gurindji strikeWave Hill walk-off – The WP:COMMONNAME for this article is Wave Hill walk-off. Compare the Google search results of 12,000 for "Gurindji strike" and 800,000 for "Wave Hill walk off". The same is shown in official sources and newspapers and Google Trends, which shows a >10 times higher search rate. Laurdecl talk 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marvelous USAXseed Games – Revert move made without discussion that multiple editors have disagreed with (including even an attempted cut-and-paste move). See this article. Marvelous USA has two divisions, XSeed Games, which is the name on a bunch of relevant games with Wikipedia articles, and Marvelous Online, a non-notable custodian of dying and irrelevant browser MMORPGs that don't generally have Wikipedia articles - with the one exception, Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine, but that's dead now, and Marvelous Online only managed its last two years. I'm not even sure if they're still doing it, their website (which, granted, WAS moved to Marvelous USA) doesn't list any of the Online games, only XSEED's games. Anyway, Marvelous USA is still the "corporate parent", but all the games say XSeed, their Twitter & FB say XSeed, etc. The store isn't at Stichting INGKA Foundation, it's at IKEA. SnowFire (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anti-Christian sentimentRecent anti-Christian violence and intimidation – As discussed previously on the article's Talk page, the article basically only covers recent attacks, neglecting anything more than a few decades old, whereas the complete history is covered in the Persecution of Christians article. Also, the article is not about sentiment. It is about actions, not feelings. As someone put it here on the Talk page a couple of years ago, "the article gives readers the impression that being anti-Christian means committing acts of violence and terror, which is kind of like saying being anti-Creationist means that you have to kill Creationists." As I put it nearly five years ago, "If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title?" —BarrelProof (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Achille Émile MeeussenA. E. Meeussen – Moving was blocked because there is a redirect from that page, it seems. The spelling of A. E. Meeussen's forenames seems to be unknown for certain, but Professor Swiggers believes the second name was probably Emile rather than Émile and suggests that I remove the accent. Meeussen himself always signed his articles A. E. Meeussen, so following the suggestion of another Belgian researcher it seems best to use this as the title of the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SynthpopSynth-pop – The Google test lists "about 5,570,000 results" for synth-pop and "about 5,890,000" results for synthpop. However, it's very likely that synthpop only gets more web results than synth-pop because of this article. If we limit the search to news pieces, we get: * Synth-pop: About 37,200 results * Synthpop: About 19,400 results And when limited to books: * Synth-pop: About 7,050 results * Synthpop: About 4,170 results Historically, synth-pop (or synth pop) appears to be the more common spelling. This is also true for technopop and techno pop: * Techno pop: About 7,520 results (books) / 3,450 (news) * Technopop: About 2,780 results (books) / 791 (news) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Blair (disambiguation)John Blair – The base name is a redirect to a page with a "Jr." yet there are 20 people on the disambiguation page. The person at the base url may be well-known with the US though outside of that supreme court is not one of the renowned jurists of the world. The disambiguation page should reside at the base url as there are so many John Blairs, and clean-up of links to the US justice from base url can be achieved easily, and there is no page move required beyond the disambig page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Empress ShōshiFujiwara no Shōshi – The main title, "Empress Shoshi", is technically incorrect and cannot be considered accurate from a historical point of view. Wikipedia should not perpetuate incorrect forms. According to WP:MOS-JP (which is a guideline for Japan-related articles) for the Japanese emperors and empresses we should use the form [[Emperor/Empress {name}]], which is a partial translation of their posthumous names. On posthumous names not all the empresses have them, as some of those names have been either lost or changed throughout the history. If any of the 諡号 shigō (posthumous name) or 追号 tsuigō (another form of posthumous name) names of an empress is known then it can be used, for example Tachibana no Kachiko who can also be called by her posthumous name "Empress Danrin". Otherwise, like many other ancient empresses, Shoshi should be styled as Fujiwara no Shoshi, as I can't find a posthumous name for her except "Jōtōmon-in" but she's never been commonly known as "Empress Jōtōmon-in" in sources, which can be realized by a single Google search [1] & [2]. She was first Empress, then Grand Empress, then Senior Grand Empress, and then an Imperial Lady — but she was Fujiwara no Shōshi all along. I had discussed it with Japanese Wikipedians a long time ago and they said "Posthumous names for Empresses were disappeared in late Asuka-Nara period (上代, 6-8 century), and Nyoin name (女院) started to be used instead". Furthermore they noted that Nyoin names aren't in use today anymore. It can obviously be seen on Wikipedia that almost all the articles about ancient Japanese empresses are titled "Clan name" 'no' "name". This page shouldn't be an exception. (it also makes it a WP:CONSISTENT move). Keivan.fTalk 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ahmad ShamlooAhmad Shamlou – Various spellings are used for the last name all over the internet. Even in the article, there's been various spellings, which I just fixed to be consistent. There's one spelling that's preferred his estate, and used by his official website (, that's Shamlou, and we better use that spelling here, too. I cannot Move manually, because there's a redirect set on the target to the current title. Behnam (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TNA Television ChampionshipTNA King of the Mountain Championship – This was the final name of the championship before it was retired, and thusly the name of the page should remain as such. It shouldn't matter that it was called the TV title during the Hogan years (it wasn't even defended or mentioned for an entire tear before being deactivated). More people are going to recognize the title by its more recent and final name. It makes sense for the page to remain as the name the title retired on not it's 3 name change. Hellboy42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss)Bethany DillonBethany Barnard – It seems the subject is now releasing music under the new name. We would need to leave a redirect at Bethany Dillon, and likely have to modify the article to reflect the new name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pride Week (Toronto)Pride Toronto – While this move was rejected in an RM discussion in 2010, and then suggested again in 2012 without being addressed either way (see unheadlined comment by Smckinnon at the bottom of the QUAIA section above), there's been a significant change as of 2016 that warrants revisiting the proposal: in 2016, although the primary community festival still took place in the final week leading up to the parade itself, Pride as a whole was not declared as just that week, but for the entirety of June. The final week was still the biggest locus of activity, but the flag-raising kickoff at Nathan Phillips Square was held on May 31 and declared Pride Month rather than Pride Week ([17]), and a program of Pride-related events was scheduled throughout the entire month of June rather than being confined solely to the week of the main community festival alone ([18]). And while certainly stuff could change between now and June, that is currently what's expected to happen again this year. So, rather than quibbling over whether the event is "Pride Week" or "Pride Month", I believe the best course of action here is now to move the article to the title Pride Toronto. ("Pride Week" and "Pride Month" can still be retained as redirects, so that a person who's expecting one of those titles will still get here.) I would also note that the idea that this article is about the event rather than the organization, which is what was proffered in the original RM discussion as a reason not to move the article, isn't all that convincing an argument — the article, as written, is somewhat of a hybrid of "the event" and "the organization", as evidenced by the content about QUAIA and financial difficulties and the stuff that should be here but isn't yet about the current BLM/police fracas. There wouldn't be much basis for us to maintain two separate articles about the event and the organization that runs it, but the idea that this article isn't at least partially about the organization isn't really an accurate reflection of what's actually in this article. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss)Wu ZetianEmpress Wu – This is the name used in most English-language sources I've seen. See also Google Ngrams. There is of course the concern that "Empress Wu" is ambiguous (Empress Wu (disambiguation)), but do a GBook search of "Empress Wu" [25] and review the results one by one, I'd say over 95% of the usage is about Wu Zetian. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies, and if you multiply the top "Empress Wu" curve in the Ngram graph by 95%, it'd still be well above the bottom "Wu Zetian" curve (by at least 50%). Two other considerations: 1) "Wu Zetian" gives the impression that "Zetian" is a personal name (it's not). This is the same argument presented in previous discussions like Wikipedia_talk:History standards for China-related articles#Emperor article titles discouraging translations like Han Wudi. 2) In Chinese, the term "Wu Zetian" is a hodgepodge that never appeared in traditional historiography as far as I know. Traditional history books most often called her 武后 ("Empress Wu"). Timmyshin (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. AjaxSmack  02:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.JFG talk 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PeafowlPeacock – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl[26], and 65 million for peacock![27]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hydronic balancingHydraulic balancing – Hydronic balancing does not exist. You can perform hydraulic balancing on any hydronic heating/ cooling system as an act of optimizing the pressure of the closed system so energy is exposed to the surface at maximum efficiency. Thenaturalist (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss)Class-T amplifierClass T – The article is about a trademarked product. There is no such thing as a "Class-T amplifier", Class T is simply a trademark for this company's design of a class D amplifier. This is clear and there is no dispute. Because of this, we should be referring to "Class T" as a trademark, and class D as the design, both in the article and in the title. Also, I believe it should be "was a trademark" as I don't see a live trademark, and the parent company seems out of business. Best I can tell, the dash wasn't used either. Second choice is move to company name. Current name is misleading. (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cosme de TorrèsCosme de Torres – Cosme de Torres is a Spanish person, but Torrès is how you spell his name in Portuguese. The grave accent reminds you to pronounce the "e" fully, which would not happen automatically in Portuguese, but it does happen automatically in Spanish. Note that the Spanish-language page also has no accent. Patrick Schwemmer (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)American Media (publisher)American Media, Inc. – PThe company seems to consistently use ", Inc." in it's company name, this article uses that structure throughout, and the articles on the tabloid magazines they own seem to consistently use "American Media, Inc." While the Inc in most common names is often only on official stationary, this seems to be a more natural non-parenthetical way of being clear. On the other hand, this article was created by Jimbo and the current name is hardly terrible. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Meadowhall CentreMeadowhall – The shopping centre is commonly known simply as "Meadowhall", as per its own website and logo, and indeed the lead sentence of the article. It is clearly the primary topic for the name. The existing dab page does not need to be retained as - other than the shopping centre - it mentions only the surrounding area of Sheffield (which has no article of its own) and various transport connections, which are covered on the separately existing Meadowhall station dab page anyway. Jellyman (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)EdernyEderney – The correct and official name for this village is Ederney, which is confirmed by this. It clearly states: The townland name from which the village derives is Ederny but the official spelling of the village has been Ederney since 1992.. A redirect already exists at Ederney pointing to Ederny so I can not simply move the page. Whilst it would seem an uncontroversial move, the article originally stood at Ederney since its creation back in January 2006 until it was moved undiscussed back in February 2013 by @Asarlaí: who cited: this is the official and most popular spelling, without providing any evidence and which going by the above source is incorrect. This move was reverted by @Ukireland: before Asarlaí reinstated their undiscussed and contested move [30], to which the article has remained ever since. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Insee thongInsee Thong – Proper capitalisation. Speedy denied because it was apparently intentionally decapitalised by User:Wisekwai back in 2007, but there doesn't appear to be any policy or guideline that supports this. Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 03:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Abysmal (album)AbysmalAbysmal currently redirects to the dab page Abyss, but this album is the only entry there that has this title, and I don't find it likely that most readers would expect to find it there. It would be better to move this page over the redirect and add a hatnote linking to the dab instead. --MASHAUNIX 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fallen Empires (album)Fallen Empires – The article about the Magic set was merged to a list-type article of early Magic sets. I would suggest therefore that the current WP:PTOPIC would be the article which clearly displays notability, which is the album, and should thus enjoy the un-disambiguated name. This is borne out by an average 2-3x (but same magnitude) pageview comparison. (I would guess the spike of the one article relates to some blog coverage of the Magic set.) Izno (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Red Cross with Triptych egg → ? – This page was moved from Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) to Red Cross with Triptych by MaybeMaybeMaybe in 2012. I subsequently moved it to Red Cross with Triptych egg, since the article was not about a triptych but about an egg and(that was careless) unaware that it had already existed once under Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). It appears that a large proportion of the Faberge egg articles exist with either the parenthetical Faberge egg at the end or simply the word "egg". I attempted to move this article back into Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) but was prevented from doing so by its edit history. There is no explanation as to why the article was moved away from this namespace in the first place, and no discussion anywhere about the move. I see no reason not to move it back (unless there really is a good reason somewhere). KDS4444 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Im Yoon-ahLim Yoon-ah – As per a section above, Yoona's surname is Lim, not Im. The incorrect surname here on Wikipedia has lead sites such as Google to display her name likewise erroneously. Not only is Lim her actual surname, but also by convention surnames are romanized traditionally. The same way Kim Tae-yeon is not Gim Tae-yeon, Lim Yoon-ah should not be Im Yoon-ah. To sum up, two reasons: 1. Lim is Yoona's actual surname instead of Im; 2. Lim is the conventional way to romanize the surname. GeT RiGhT (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sette note in neroThe Psychic – per WP:UE and WP:NCF#Foreign-language films. As confirmed by the poster appended to the article, this Italian feature was marketed, distributed and reviewed in the English-speaking world under the title The Psychic. Although the 2013 exchange ["Italian titles vs English titles"], above, postulates that the main title header should display the Italian title because there are multiple English-language titles, a search of film listings in newspapers across the English-speaking world, only finds "The Psychic" as a title which was released for public exhibition and on DVD. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "NBC News Revamps Leadership and Acquires Stake in European Network". The New York Times Company. Retrieved 20 February 2017. 

See also[edit]