Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.)

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

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

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

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

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

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

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

Requesting technical moves

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code at the top of the list, 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 ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • 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. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 26 October 2021" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

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).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}

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.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 26 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.[]

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.[]

{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 26 October 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021‎ (UTC)[]

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 October 2021

– why Example (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).[]

{{subst:Requested move|new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 26 October 2021

– why Example (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes 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.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with 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 using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

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.[b] 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 automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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 by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 39 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

October 26, 2021

  • (Discuss)XimeraXimera – – The topic of this is a MOOC system originated at Ohio State University which offered a course with the common name of Calculus One. That system used to be called MOOCulus and is now Ximera (pronounced "chimera"). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 03:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Siege of Yorktown (1862)Battle of Yorktown – I believe that reliable sources use both "Battle" and "Siege" to characterize this part of the Peninsula campaign, possibly with "Battle" being used more often. Technically, it was really more a battle than a siege, as there were Union attacks on the Confederate position and eventually the Confederates simply retreated up the Peninsula, not usually the outcome of a siege. The lead also uses "Battle of Yorktown" as the primary title in spite of the page name. The proposed target is currently a redirect to Siege of Yorktown as a primary redirect per a recent requested move discussion regarding that article as the primary topic for "Siege of Yorktown". If this move is supported as proposed, we can then use "Battle" and "Siege" as natural disambiguation between the two topics and avoid the need for parenthetical disambiguation, continuing to use hatnotes between the two topics. An alternative would be to maintain the Revolutionary War topic as the primary topic for "Battle of Yorktown" and move the Civil War article to Battle of Yorktown (1862) (currently a redirect here) if we still favored the use of Battle instead of Siege. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Parse (platform)Parse Inc. – Hi everyone, I suggest moving this page to Parse,_Inc.. The reason is the lack of disambiguation between the dissolved company Parse, Inc. and the active open-source project Parse Platform. The current article primarily describes the company history, but uses the open-source project name as the article title, easily creating confusion for readers. To address this, the proposed change is to move the article to Parse,_Inc.. This is analogous to the distinction between the company Facebook,_Inc. and the product Facebook, or the company Google and the product Firebase. I opened a move request in the past, but it seems to have expired without conclusion due to lack of participation. I have discussed moving the page previously in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force as suggested by @Deb and would like to thank @K4rolB for their support. COI disclosure: I am a member of Parse Platform, hence I am request�ing the move instead of making the move myself. I want to explicitly mention that this is not a promotional suggestion but intended to improve the article quality for readers. ManuelTrezza (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 25, 2021

  • (Discuss)AoösVjosa – Vjosa/Aoos crosses Albania and Greece. About 80km are in Greece, 192km in Albania. The current revision uses a Greek variant. I hope to show that Aoös is the least common of all variants (Albanian and Greek), while Vjosa is the most common form of all other variants, both Albanian and Greek. Google books trends: [1] Vjosa river has overtaken Aoos river since 2014 Google news trends (2008-2021): [2] Similar results to google books. Google news trends doesn't even recognize as Aoos/Aoös as the correct search for the river, instead it suggests Vjosë, the indefinite form of Vjosa Google scholar (2000-2021): 180 "Aoos river", 414 "Vjosa river", 87 "Vjosë river" Sources about environmentalism which go to depth about the river prefer the use of "Vjosa" and mention Aoos in passing as the name of the river in Greece. [3] [4] For example, National Geographic mentions the term Vjosa 42 times and the term Aoos only once in the sentence: "The Vjosa has one dam, built in the late 1980s near its origin in the Pindus Mountains across the border in northern Greece, where the river is known as Aoos." As most of the river travels through Albania, for most people who live in the Vjosa basin it's known as Vjosa. Vjosa is the name most preferred by journalists, academia, media platforms, environmentalist organizations and most people who live in the Vjosa region. Botushali (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)CaribanaToronto Caribbean Carnival – Rather than a unilateral move, I think a discussion should be held with regards to moving this article to the official name of the festival. I feel it should stay at the title that most people identify with the celebration, but I think the community should decide. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Pseudo-secularismCriticism of secularism in India – I propose in this section that Pseudo-secularism should be moved to Criticism of secularism in India, and that content from the Secularism in India article be split off into this one. Here is my reasoning. Firstly, this article is about a term used in many countries, but the content is exclusively about India. Indeed, the page Pseudo-secularism (India) already redirects here. This content is therefore much better placed on an article that is explicitly about India, such as the title I have proposed. Another article could then be created at this title to cover global use of the term. Secondly, the article about Secularism in India is a clear WP:POV article, and needs to be rewritten and reorganised. There is enough content about criticism of Indian secularism to split off a whole article about it. There is useful content on the Secularism in India article, although it would need to be rewritten. If such an article was written, it would cover essentially the same topic as this article, and it would be silly to have two separate articles. Thus I think it better that we undertake a merger at the same time. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)2021 Milan airplane crash2021 San Donato Milanese airplane crash – The airplane crash didn't happen in Milan, but in the nearby locality of San Donato Milanese. The title is misleading. I had thought it happened on Milan and that San Doneto Milanese could be some quarter of the city or something like that. I didn't pay much attention to it. This could also be the case for many readers, so we should use the correct location on the title. Super Ψ Dro 10:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 19:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)TriplemaníaTriplemania – Per WP:UE: The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage. English-language reliable sources ([5] [6] [7] [8]...) most often refer to this event as Triplemania with no accent. Note that Category:Triplemanía and other articles and templates would also be affected by this proposed move. 162 etc. (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. -- Calidum 16:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Communal (disambiguation)Communal – I don't think this should be a primary redirect to intentional community. Based on searches of Google Books and Google Scholar, this is a word used in a variety of ways, without a clear primary topic. I would suggest that "communal" should be either a dab page or a wiktionary redirect. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 24, 2021

  • (Discuss)Imia/KardakImia – The article currently is using a double name formula, Imia/Kardak, by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" which used by the majority of the WP:RS (5.000 results in Google Books: [9]), along with the less used alternative Turkish name "Kardak" (900 results [10]). The pairing of the two names together (Imia/Kardak) provides 3.200 results [11]. The majority of the historical/geographical maps (even Turkish ones) that were published prior to the crisis, used the name "Imia" (see: Cartographic evidence for more info). And the International community uses the name Imia or has lend their support to Greece which calls them "Imia", while Turkey's position with the name "Kardak" didn't ever gain any notable support (see: International positions). I am completely aware that the article's topic is politically sensitive, however, that doesn't mean the project's naming rules shouldn't apply: per WP:ARTICLENAME, the title should be a single name, which is the common practice across the English Wikipedia. Usually, the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on the majority of the WP:RS and the views of the majority. Per WP:POVNAMING policy, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy even if some may regard it to be biased. According to the same rule, double name formulas like [Name1]/[Name2] should not be used, and the alternative name should be given WP:DUE prominence within the article instead of WP:UNDUE on the title, with redirects created where appropriate. WP:POVNAMING is part of Wikipedia's core policy, the WP:NPOV. I am initiating this move request to bring the article in line with the WP:NEUTRAL rules and make it WP:CONSISTENT with how all the 200+ articles both in the Disputed Islands topic area and the Territorial Disputes topic area, are given single names. - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Paco LópezPaco López (footballer) – The current titling is WP:ASTONISH as there is nothing to indicate whether the jockey or the footballer is the accented or non-accented name, or whether both titles are redirects to the same person. The jockey was born in Mexico and likely has an accented name, but works in the US, where the press rarely use accents. Spanish-language sources for the jockey use accents: [12] [13] [14]. Meanwhile, the footballer was born in and works in Spain, where his name is accented, but the English-language sources our users may know him by most likely don't accent: including the English edition of Marca, the leading Spanish newspaper [15] [16] [17]. In short, neither of the current titles are clear on who they're referring to, whether by legal name or English-language common name. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:C113:2612:313E:9D4E (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 23, 2021

October 22, 2021

  • (Discuss)Byte (app)Clash (app) – Byte didn't shut down, but rather, it renamed to Clash after it joined the "Clash family". The reason why I'm requesting this instead of moving the page myself right away is because I'd like everyone else's inputs before I move it. L33tm4n (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) L33tm4n (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. VR talk 19:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Atmanirbhar BharatAtmanirbhar Bharat (slogan) – This is a tricky one, but adding the bracketed word (slogan) helps justify the direction this article is going. Just now emphasis is on the usage of the phrase as a phrase, and not as a concept. The first few lines say the same. If the article is to stay at its current location, re-structing will need to be done to emphasize more on the history with a de-emphasis on post 2014 usage. DTM (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Whitehouse.govWhiteHouse.gov – Per here, the format used by the White House itself is WhiteHouse.gov. That formatting is clearer to readers, so I think we should adopt it as well. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 21, 2021

  • (Discuss)Canterbury Regional CouncilEnvironment Canterbury – The council is almost exclusively referred to as Environment Canterbury. Even in instances where the term regional council is mentioned, it seems to be in the context of "regional council Environment Canterbury" instead of as part of the name. Turnagra (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Wataten!: An Angel Flew Down to MeWataten! – Should the article be at simply "Wataten!"? The full title seems to be rarely used outside of official licensing websites, or databases like ANN. Meanwhile, "Wataten" without the subtitle appears to be the most common name for the series in both Japanese and English; for example, the official website is at watatentv.com, and the official Twitter handle is watatentv, not to mention the anime's main voice actresses perform the series' theme songs as Wataten 5. Wataten without the subtitle also appears to be the most common way to refer to the series among the anime community. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Kennadi BrinkJessika Carr – Her common name is Jessika Carr in PW sources since 2017 (when she signed with WWE). Her career as a referee in WWE is much more notable than her days as a wrestler in the independent circuit. She has appeared in many WWE PPVs and events as well as WWE weekly shows like NXT and SmackDown. She is an active referee as Jessika Carr while her last match as Kennadi Brink was in 2017. Mann Mann (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Mann Mann (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 20, 2021

  • (Discuss)RGB color spaceRGB color spaces – See also above: I read the Wikipedia style guide and the idea that Wikipedia should not use plurals in titles is misunderstood here. In a case like this, Wikipedia says that plurals SHOULD be used. REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals) RGB color spaces refers to a GROUP of spaces that use the RGB color model, therefore "RGB color spaces" must be plural for disambiguation reasons. Singular RGB color space is incorrect as the singular generic form should be referred to as "RGB color model" while actual RGB color spaces each have specific attributes that can not be summed up by a singular noun. This is a source of great confusion and really needs to be fixed correctly, thank you Myndex (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)ScallionGreen onion – A Google search turns up over 300 million hits for "green onions," but that also includes hits for the eponymous and well-known instrumental. A search for "green onions vegetable" returns over 197 million results, about four times as many as "scallions," which only produces 49 million. In addition, users in other Anglophone regions, which prefer the term "spring onion," would probably find "green onion" more recognizable than "scallion." CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Chris JedayChris Jedi – Artist changed his legal artist name as reflected on all his social media accounts as well as recent musical releases. Article content uses the correct name as verified but the title is wrong and I’m unable to move the article. Geotronico (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)DISC assessment → ? – I am proposing this move to explicitly include the theory behind the assessment. I'm not 100% sure what name would be best - I suggest DISC personalities, DISC personality theory or DISC theory. I prefer DISC personalities because its the shortest one that is absolutely clear what the topic is about, and because I saw it described at least as often as I saw the other two forms that I've suggested. It's impossible to properly discuss the testing without discussing the underlying theory, and if there was a separate article discussing the DISC personalities, then I would propose to merge with it. I have described part of my argument in another discussion on this talk page, so I'll just quote it here for simplicity: an article about a series of tests very rapidly becomes an article about a series of attempts to validate a particular theory (because it is the process for validating a theory). And it would mean a reader is guided through the whole topic rather than just a small component of it. Having the tests in the theory article is better than the theory in the tests article because the theory is the umbrella topic. Discussion of every disc assessment automatically is referring to the theory, but the theory can be discussed in the absence of any of the tests. It would therefore be inappropriate to discuss some parts of the theory in the tests article but testing is entirely within the scope of a theory article. Xurizuri (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 19, 2021

  • (Discuss)The CrownBritish Crown – The term Crown is also used in other monarchies. This article is only about the Commonwealth realms. There are "The Crown"s of non-Commonwealth realm countries, "The Crown" is ambiguous. A more accurate title of the article would be something like The Crown (Commonwealth of Nations), but in the sources the name British Crown is more common, it is also simpler and clearer (without brackets). Somerby (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Common leopard geckoLeopard gecko – Thank you for checking in to assess this requested page move, your time is appreciated. I believe a rename to "Leopard Gecko" from "common leopard gecko" is warranted. "Leopard gecko" is generally used as vernacular to refer to E. macularius unambiguously, not to the genus Eublepharis. Though some other Eublepharis species are occasionally referred to as leopard geckos (though always with a modifier - eg, Satpura leopard gecko or West Indian leopard gecko), majority use guidelines for page naming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Reasons_for_moving_a_page) would indicate that it is more appropriate to name this page "Leopard gecko" which is used by most to refer to E. macularius, as opposed to "common leopard gecko", which not frequently used. Furthermore, "leopard gecko" is used synonymously with E. macularius in most scientific literature (see link to prior discussion below for details), and google search results for "leopard gecko" currently link to the page for "common leopard gecko," which indicate that internet users searching for leopard gecko are looking for information on E. macularius and not the genus Eublepharis (In further support of this assertion, please see this research article on reptile search terms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8001315/). The name of the page not reflecting this majority use could potentially be confusing to users not well versed in latin names. This change would be unlikely to cause inconvenience to those familiar with latin names, as the best way to be precise would be to search the actual latin name to begin with, which would redirect users to the appropriate page anyway. This topic was previously discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles/Archive_7#Proposed_Eublepharis_vs._Leopard_Gecko_Page_Renames where consensus was moving the page was warranted. As not many editors weighed in, I felt providing opportunity for further discussion was warranted prior to the rename. Connorlong90 (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 14:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Galit Distel-EtebaryanGalit Distel-Atbaryan – The currect way to spell her name, now there's Niqqud added to her native Hebrew name in the article. So this is more proof that Atbaryan is the correct romanization (as her personal and formal Facebook pages, per the Knesset website, per Instagram and other many sources [1] [2] [3]), Etebaryan is not "common name" its a misspelling, that her real name we talking about not nickname or stage name, same real name. so per WP:BLP we should fix the wrong spelling. Google generate 1,290 results for "Galit Distel-Etebaryan" and 4,600 results for "Galit Distel Atbaryan". Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Sokuya (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 14:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Nebra sky diskNebra sky disc – The whole article is written in British English, and disc is the common British spelling used in most non-US sources e.g. BBC, i News, Art Newspaper. Other sources such as [28] use both spellings inconsistently, but it makes no sense for an article title to use US terminology, but the article itself to use UK spellings. As the artifact is from Germany, we would usually default to UK spellings (as Western Europe generally use British English). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Berlusconism''Berlusconismo'' – While there are examples of usage of the word "Berlusconism" in English (see this Google search), it is not true that the term in English is often used by foreign mainstream media. I only found examples of the English-language term in one book (G. Orsina, Berlusconism and Italy. A Historical Interpretation) and a few academic papers. Since it is widely more used as "Berlusconismo" in Italian mainstream media and academia, it is probably better to use the Italian name as title. Ritchie92 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)TorezChystiakove – Wikipedia should be neutral in the conflict between the separatists and Ukraine. There is one mean to achieve it: entitle this article by its legal name (or name de jure) i.e. Chystiakove. Moreover, the DPR is internationally unrecognised. Bogatyr (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Backlog

  • (Discuss)BatwomanKate Kane – An article that is exclusively about Kate Kane should be renamed "Kate Kane". An article titled "Batwoman" should be about ALL superheroes who've been known as Batwoman; or in other words, the "Batwoman (identity)" article should be renamed "Batwoman". The overwhelming preference given in this article to a character who did not even exist throughout most of Batwoman's history is inexcusable. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)German gold markGold Mark – The currency is the clear primary topic, both in terms of long term significance, and in terms of usage, receiving more views that all the alternatives put together. Further, "gold mark" is incorrect; it is used as a singular, proper noun and so even if the consensus is against it being considered primary it should be moved to "German Goldmark" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)FC Spartak VladikavkazFC Alania Vladikavkaz – To bring the pages into consistency with Russian wiki. The continuity between the two clubs is not clear and some sources contradict the others, but the Russian FOOTY community had a detailed discussion over this and a consensus was reached to separate Spartak Vladikavkaz performing in 2019/20 season from the rest. (I personally agree with the desicion). TLDR: the club (1995 Russian champions) was known for many years as either Spartak or Alania. In 2016 Alania was dissolved as a legal entity and Spartak was created as a successor. In 2019 Alania was reformed and took Spartak's head coach and most of the players. Spartak, however, continued playing simultaneously with Alania for one more season (19/20, which was cut short due to COVID) with almost all-new squad (youngsters) and disbanded in spring 2020. The proposed changes are supported by team's history outline on Alania website, and by some of the football stats websites (like Soccerway). BlameRuiner (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Heuristics in judgment and decision-makingHeuristic (psychology) – TL;DR - Moving this page should be uncontroversial, but I'm not 100% certain about which name would be preferred. To start with, I'm also fine with Heuristic (cognitive), Heuristic (cognition) and Heuristic (cognitive science). I do prefer psychology because it encompasses cognitive science, so it's the least specific option that still clearly identifies the topic (WP:PRECISE). It's also more recognisable to a lay audience. But I only have a surface level of knowledge of this topic (half of a uni lecture and occasionally reading up on cognitive biases, to be precise), so I could be wrong about which qualifier would be best. The reasoning to move: # WP:COMMONNAME: Psych/cog science call them "heuristics" not "heuristics in judgement and decision-making". # WP:QUALIFIER: The parenthetical format is the most appropriate format here. It is not the primary topic, so cannot be just "Heuristic"; it has no real alternative name; it's not appropriate for a comma-separated qualifier; and parenthetical qualifiers are generally preferred over descriptive titles (or titles that combine methods). Note that the current name is descriptive. # WP:CONCISE: The current name is very long for no reason. # WP:CRITERIA (consistency): The other heuristic articles are titled Heuristic, Heuristic (engineering), Heuristic (computer science), and Heuristic argument (although this last one doesn't support my position, I still think the rest of them show a clear pattern). Singular form ("heuristic") followed by a qualifier in brackets that identifies the relevant field or topic area would also match the pattern broadly used in other science, social science, psychology, and cognitive science articles. Basically, the current name isn't ideal and its best to have it in the form of Heuristic (qualifier). Xurizuri (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Troy VIITroy VI/VII – As explained in Troy#Troy_VI-VII, current scholarship considers Troy VII to be a continuation of Troy VI. Most of the text one could add here would apply to Troy VI as well, so it would be better to have an article that covers both (and redirect both "Troy VII" and "Troy VI" here.) Botterweg14 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Saekano: How to Raise a Boring GirlfriendSaekano – "How to Raise a Boring Girlfriend" is the series' subtitle, and a search reveals less than 1,000,000 Google hits for the full title. On the other hand, just "Saekano" without the subtitle gets around 2.6 million hits. On the other hand, many official sources such as licensor websites and ANN list the series under its full title. Should the article remain in the full title, or is the short form the more appropriate article title here? MOS:SUBTITLE suggests that the most common name should be used, while earlier discussion at WT:ANIME suggested that article titles of anime with subtitles should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Seán Patrick O'MalleySeán O'Malley – It was successfully argued on the talk page of the fighter Sean O'Malley, that the Cardinal's common name was Seán O'Malley, and as a result the fighter's page was moved. If that's the case I don't see a reason why the Cardinal's page shouldn't be moved.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Final (album)Final (Vol.1) – ...although I'd be happy with Final Vol.1 as well. The artist has called the two volumes of this as his "final" album, but in reality these are two separate albums – they have two separate release dates several months apart (not even in the same calendar year), will have different track listings, will be sold and streamed as individual albums, will be reviewed separately, and have individual chart placings... it makes no sense to lump both albums together in the same article. Per WP:COMMONNAME, almost all reliable sources are calling this album Final (Vol.1), including the Billboard charts [30], Swiss charts [31], and the streaming sites Apple Music [32], Spotify [33] and Amazon [34]... the Spanish chart is calling it Final Vol.1 without the parentheses [35], as does a USA Today review of his live show [36], and the one album review so far calls it Final Vol 1 [37]. AllMusic doesn't have a review of the album yet, but have it listed in their database as Final, Vol. 1 [38]. However you look at it, "Vol 1" is included in every independent source that talks about this album. Richard3120 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Shillpi SharmaDJ Shilpi Sharma – Her real name is Shilpi not Shillpi. As there is already an article present with the name Shilpi Sharma, her name is being changed. Instead add DJ infront of her name Shilpi as everyone knows her by that, so the correct name won't be disrupted by this way. ManaliJain (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)The Duke and Duchess of UrbinoDiptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza – "Diptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza" is the correct title for the subject painting since Federico was not made a Duke until after his wife's death, so she could not have been a duchess. [6] [7] Currently page 2 ("Diptych of Federico da Montefeltro and Battista Sforza") REDIRECTs to page 1 ("The Duke and Duchess of Urbino"). When the move is completed page 1 should REIRECT to page 2.

References

  1. ^ Rao, Venkatesh (6 September 2016). "How Harambe Became the Perfect Meme". The Atlantic.
  2. ^ Romano, Aja (17 August 2016). "Harambe the gorilla is still dead. But Harambe the meme won't die". Vox.
  3. ^ Roy, Jessica (30 December 2016). "Harambe was the meme we couldn't escape in 2016". Los Angeles Times.
  4. ^ Harding, Paul T. (1980). A catalogue of the papers of Denis R. Pack Beresford at the library of the Royal Irish Academy. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
  5. ^ "The Bangladesh Gazette" (PDF). 15 October 2020. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  6. ^ Hoysted, Elaine (April 2012). "Battista Sforza, Countess of Urbino" (PDF). Socheolas: Limerick Student Journal of Sociology. 4 (1): 100–116.
  7. ^ Kamhi, Michelle Marder (October 8, 2021). "Delving into an Incomparable Work of Renaissance Portraiture". For Piero’s Sake.
TedKinloch (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Richard J. GordonRichard Gordon (politician) – This man is never referred to as "Richard J. Gordon", with the middle initial. Either it's "Richard Gordon", "Richard 'Dick' Gordon" or "Dick Gordon", with preference to the first option. Now, checking Richard Gordon, there are at least a couple other politicians named "Richard Gordon", but neither are referred to as such, one is called "R.H. Gordon", while the other is "Rich Gordon", the Richard Gordon of this RM is never referred to by these names. Most of the references in this article refer to him in any of the three names I shared. This guy can claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over "Richard Gordon (politician)"; in case that's disputed, we can use "Richard Gordon (Filipino politician)" or "Richard Gordon (politician, born 1945)". Compare Richard J. Gordon vs. Rich Gordon. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Mike PolchlopekBart GunnWP:COMMONNAME. He is best know to the people as Bart Gunn. Despite working under other names, he worked as Bart Gunn during the Attitude Era and the New Generation era. Also, recently he appeared at Dark Side of the Ring and was credited as Bart Gunn. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Romualdas GiedraitisRomuald Giedroyć(Roumald-GizzyCatBella🍁 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)) Romuald Giedroyć is the actual name that was used by him and his contemporaries which is supported by multiple sources of that time. The name engraved on his grave is: "ROMUALD KSIĄŻĘ GIEDROYĆ", książę meaning "prince" (the picute is linked in the article). It's also the name used by his daughter in her book about uprisings in Poland. "Romualdas Giedraitis" on the other hand is a Lithuanisation of the original name used by modern Lithuanian historiographyMarcelus (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)PawayanPowayan – Tehsil name is Powayan on official government site of Shahjahanpur and on many other news sources.[1][2]
2409:4063:4E11:1AD2:C60A:7822:7D35:CB2E (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)IBM System iIBM AS/400 – See discussion on talk page. Most links to this page are through the AS/400 redirect. Most references for this system refer to the system as the AS/400, and it is more commonly known by this name. The AS/400 name was used for 12 years, compared with the 2 years in which the System i name was used. WP:UCN Vt320 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Elk (sculpture)Thompson Elk – This one's a bit difficult because the subject has many different names. However, I believe "Thompson Elk" is the best compromise. This very recent source says the sculpture is officially known as "Elk Thompson Fountain", but the statue is not currently a fountain and there are many other sources which use other names, so I'm not sure this title should be used per COMMONNAME. Sources using "Thompson Elk" include The Oregonian, KOIN, Portland Mercury, etc. But, I admit, someone could cherrypick sources to advocate for a handful of different titles. Perhaps other editors have a more systematic way of determining the best possible title? Help! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. No such user (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)Norwegian First Division → ? – I propose moving all the Norwegian men's football divisions from level 2 to level 5, in addition to the women's level 2. The reason being consistency in the article titles. As this is the English Wikipedia, it seems only reasonable that English language sources should have an impact on the names, especially when the current Norwegian names are not very prevalent in neither English nor Norwegian sources. For example, SofaScore, SoccerStats.com, FootyStats.org, Tribuna.com, and RSSSF (Norwegian football archive) all refer to the second level as the Norwegian 1st Division (or Norwegian First Division), and the lower divisions should match that name for consistency. There are also pages like Soccerway and FcTables.com who refer to the league as 1. Division, which is an incorrect translation of 1. divisjon. A correct translation would be "1st division". The Norwegian Football Federation, Altomfotball, Eurosport, VG, and Global Sports Archive refer to the Norwegian 1st Division by its sponsored name, OBOS-ligaen, which is not ideal as a Wikipedia title. Sources that refer to the second level as 1. divisjon are: NRK, NIFS, WorldFootball.net and National Football Teams. The titles I would suggest are Norwegian 1st Division, Norwegian 2nd Division etc. But they are in no way set in stone. Another opportunity is to substitute the number in the titles with letters, so that Norwegian 1st Division would become Norwegian First Division. However, I think Norwegian 1st Division should be used in that case because it is more concise and a better translation of the Norwegian "1. divisjon". The names should not be confused with Category:Divisions of Norway though. Yet another opportunity is to use the Norwegian names, but it is worth mentioning that a proposed move to 1. divisjon in 2018 reached no consensus. Another question to be had is whether the word "Division" should be capitalised or not. Also keep in mind that there are of course many templates, categories and season pages that go with these articles that would also have to be moved should this proposal be accepted. Sørhaug (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • (Discuss)KartikeyaMurugan – Murugan is the common name for this Tamil deity. Britannica has it titled as Murugan and not Kartikeya, Kartikeya does not even find a mention in the same Britannica article, that mentions Skanda as the alternate name of Murugan, I belive Britannica has got it right and Wikipedia should do the same. Searching for Murugan on Google gave Seven times more results than the number of results for Kartikeya. In literature also Murugan is more common than Kartikeya. Temples of this deity around the world (Malaysia, USA etc) are known as Murugan temple. Following Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy this should be renamed to Murugan. Venkat TL (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Malformed requests

  • Talk:Ximera – Pagename to be moved listed below template: Calculus One does not match name in template: Ximera. – Page may have been moved to the requested title.

Possibly incomplete requests

References


See also