Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Shortcuts:

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

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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]

Shortcut:

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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 22 October 2016" 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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

See also: Wikipedia:Request multiple page moves, extended blank

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

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

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructions[edit]

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

Relisting[edit]

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

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

October 22, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Greek Orthodox Church → Greek Orthodox – The present title is non-standard and confusing, given that the scope of the article is the label "Greek Orthodox" and not an organization called the "Greek Orthodox Church" (as noted in the article itself, no such organization exists; rather, there are several Churches which use the term "Greek Orthodox" in their name, and several others that are unofficially given this label, with some ambiguity as to which precise Churches qualify). All other articles with a title of the form "______ Orthodox Church" refer to actual organizations, and not to labels applied to several church bodies. The closest parallel to the label "Greek Orthodox" is the label "Slavic Orthodox", and the article for that subject is called simply Slavic Orthodox. The title of that article is therefore an adjective rather than a noun, and I think this is important. A noun title, especially of the form "______ Orthodox Church", suggests that the article refers to a concrete organization, while an adjective title is clearly a label, and therefore fits the scope of this article better. Ohff (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

October 21, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Djibouti (city) → Djibouti City – This has been proposed before, with not much discussion previously. From what I can tell, it is common for the city to be called either "Djibouti" or "Djibouti City" in English. (We currently use "(city)" to disambiguate the article name from the country, which shares the same name and is at Djibouti.) It is difficult to conduct searches to determine which is more common, since the majority of the hits that result from "Djibouti" alone are going to be for the country. But I get 330,000+ for a Wikipedia-less search of "Djibouti City", with around 3000 in google books, 800 in google news, and 300 in google scholar – so the proposed form is not uncommon. I think using "Djibouti City" would be a more natural form and in line with articles in similar situations, such as Luxembourg City. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. —  AjaxSmack  19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – God → Deity (monotheism) – God could not only mean the deity in monotheism but also mean the deity in polytheism. In wikipedia,the word "God" only means deity in monotheism, that is not fair. So I believe the content of this article should have a new title "Deity (monotheism)", and the title "God" should be redirected to "Deity". MacArthur1945 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Margaret Kenyatta → Margaret Kenyatta (Mayor of Nairobi) – There are two Margaret Kenyattas, one is the daughter of Kenya's first president Jomo Kenyatta, who was briefly the mayor of Nairobi in the 1970s, while the other is the current First Lady of Kenya, wife of President Uhuru Kenyatta, who also happens to be the half-sister of the other Margaret. Currently the older Margaret (the mayor) occupies the base title, with the First Lady at the title Margaret Gakuo Kenyatta. However, I think this is wrong because the latter is not a commonly used name for her, and we don't usually disambiguate by middle names (or indeed, maiden names, as this may be) unless the person is commonly known with that name. In terms of common usage (in 2016) and page views, [1] the First Lady enjoys about 2-3 as many as the Mayor, so I think she is probably the primary topic. And certainly the older Margaret is not the primary topic - even if we consider long term significance, a First Lady is likely to be at least as enduring in significance as someone who was just a mayor as well as the daughter of the founding president. If we don't switch the primary topic, then we should at least move to a WP:TWODABS disambiguation page with neither topic as primary. As for disambiguator, either "(Mayor of Nairobi)" or "born 1928" would be fine I think - not sure which fits better with our usual customs. It could even be "(politician)", since the First Lady is not technically one, but that might be confusing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Plains Indian Sign Language → Plains Sign Talk – Pejorative nature of the term "Indian" in Canada; understood name in both Canada and US. Searching the names "PISL" "Plains Indian Sign Language" "Plains Sign Language" "First Nation Sign Language" will garner results either through redirection or the introductory note Danachos (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 24K Magic (album) → 24K Magic – The rationale is simple. Whoever sees the album article, has access to all the songs o the album. But, when we keep the disambiguation (which is not necessary as the album page links to the song article, just like the disambig links to both articles.) We are making things easy for the reader by keeping this page on the suggested title. This is the parent album which covers the song too. It is the only other topic with this name. Similar to Can't Be Tamed, etc. MaranoFan (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)--Even if the nominator is opposing his own move, it attracted enough attention for this. Relisting to obtain a clearer consensus (if there is one) © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 20, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Sebastopol → Sebastopol (disambiguation) – Dab has a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Sebastopol, Crimea . ridiculously surprising obvious primary topic to me for a while which I considered ridiculous that it wasn't fixed by now, but now seemingly contested... : *Sebastopol, Crimea is over 30x size (population) of all other places **...so bigger than all others put together *Highest encyclopaedic value - historic, derived names, newsworthy (current) compared to all others items *(and satisfies our guideline of a valid alternative bolded title in the lede per WP:MOSDAB / WP:D ) **Don't put much weight on newer spelling vs older spelling per WP:RECENTISM (e.g. see examples of the spellings of derivative places, which if anything indicates a separate "offtopic" from this RM reason to merge the two dabs, which is tangential to deciding the primary topic here and now) I.e. create (primary topic) redirect from Sebastopol redirecting to Sevastopol. Per usual, we move the dab to Sebastopol (disambiguation) (then format the dab to have a primary topic - partly already done as I considered this uncontroversial maintenance. I think it still is, but the proposal wasn't clearly made). This is happens to be similar (but unrelated) to Sevastopol (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 10:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

October 19, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Lobby (room) → Foyer – per WP:NATURALDIS, and WP:CONCISE. Due to 'lobby' having many meanings it isn't really possible to use an ngram or similar methods to demonstrate one way or the other whether 'foyer' or 'lobby' is the WP:COMMONNAME for the room in question, however WP:NATURALDIS clearly states that "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" meaning that even if lobby is the more common (which I have my doubts about) then the page should still be moved to foyer. Ebonelm (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 18, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Tunisia Campaign → Tunisian Campaign – The adjectival form is more popular (and makes more sense). It is, for example, in the title of at least two books: Exit Rommel: The Tunisian Campaign, 1942–43 and Birth of an Army: The Story of the Tunisian Campaign. Srnec (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pokharel → Pokhrel – This page is a list of names of people. Even so, not one of the people in this list are actually named what the title of this page currently is. Every single one of them has the name Pokhrel, which for some reason redirects to Laxmi Prasad Devkota. If there is some reason why the requested title currently goes to that name, then we could send it to Pokhrel (surname) instead. Thanks, Gluons12 talk 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC). --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 17, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Incarnation (Christianity) → Incarnation of Christ – the main reason for this move is that Incarnation (Christianity) is not natural—Wikipedia guidelines WP:NATURAL state to use a natural page title when one is available and is WP:COMMONNAME. Hence, the suggested page title Incarnation of Christ, which is natural and recognizable. The current title could be confusing, as readers may think the article talks about the doctrine of the incarnation of a body in Christian eschatology, rather than the incarnation of the divine Jewish messiah called Christ (title), regarded by Christians to be Jesus of Nazareth. It could also be named Incarnation of Jesus, however, per WP:CONSISTENCY, I choose to suggest Incarnation of Christ to match similar articles such as Pre-existence of Christ. Christ is the title for the divine messiah in Christianity, while Jesus is the name of the incarnation of God the Son on earth. Hence, it would be more encyclopedic to name it Incarnation of Christ rather than Incarnation of Jesus. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fresh Horses (album) → Fresh Horses – The Garth Brooks album has more pageviews in recent history (well over 100 a day, vs. ~80 for the film). Furthermore, the album has a much larger number of inbound links, and at least five of the ~50 inbound links intended for the album actually link to the film's page, so I would bet that many of the hits for the Film's page are actually for people looking for the album. Whatever the case, I think it's pretty clear-cut that a multi-platinum album by one of the biggest singers of all time is far more WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than some obscure film. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ghosts 'n Goblins (series) → Ghosts 'n Goblins – The Ghosts 'n Goblins series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:

    "...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. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

    ...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

October 16, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – File shortcut → Shortcut file – At least in Windows, shortcuts need not refer to files at all: they can refer to any Shell item (whether it's a file/directory or something more abstract, like "[My] Computer", "Network [Neighborhood]", "Control Panel", "Recycle Bin", or "Recent Places"), or even to a thing that may or may not need to be installed from an MSI before use. (And if you count .url files, you can make shortcuts to webpages, too.) Also, shortcuts to programs specify not only which program to run, but what parameters to pass on its command line. (And this part presumably applies to *nix's .desktop shortcuts, too.) So they aren't just "shortcuts to files", but files that represent shortcuts to ... things, and the article name "Shortcut file" would make more sense. —SamB (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tatpurusa → Tatpurusha – The English transliteration of तत्पुरुष is tatpurusha. While the article's use of the IAST transliteration--tatpuruṣa (note the underdot)--is correct, tatpurusa (sans underdot) is not. The word has also entered the English language as tatpurusha as evidenced in Webster, Collins, etc. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Gonzo (Muppet) → The Great Gonzo – This article was moved (without discussion!) last year from The Great Gonzo to Gonzo (Muppet). Given that we prefer natural disambiguation, and that there was a discussion from 2010 on this very topic already on this talk page, this move should not have been treated as uncontroversial. I propose moving it back, because the natural disambiguation is superior to the artificial "(Muppet)" disambiguation. Powers T 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

October 15, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Abellio Greater Anglia → Greater Anglia – Company has resumed trading as Greater Anglia from 16 October. Greater Anglia is currently a disambiguation page for 2 articles, other article being the former name of the East Anglia franchise that the subject of this article operates. Effectively this will be a restoration of how the article was named prior to January 2014 when the train operating company traded as Greater Anglia, so as was previously the case, this is the primary article. Shireofsx (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Brownian noise → Brown noise – Per WP:COMMONNAME, since "Brown noise" is the common name for such noise despite technically not referring to the color (where the tern "Red noise" more accurately describes the color spectrum of such noise). ANDROS1337TALK 19:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Afro-Guyanese → African-Guyanese – People of the Caribbean now say African Caribbean. Therefore Guyanese will say African-Guyanese. People of the Caribbean or African descent no longer want to be defined by their hair. This has been a practice for a long time. 212.74.5.219 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

Shortcut:
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) – J.R. Quiñahan → JR Quiñahan – News articles and most references use JR instead of J.R. I csd-ed JR Quiñahan but was declined because MOS:INITIALS suggest periods should be used. However, there is a case that if "An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person", we can exclude MOS:INITIALS for a page. And J.R. Quiñahan falls onto that exception. So I am requesting again to move it. Babymissfortune 13:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Golden Axe (series) → Golden Axe – The Golden Axe series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:

    "...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. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

    ...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Diatonic function → Tonal function – The name "diatonic function" does not appear to be used anywhere else than on WP; in addition, it may be considered misleading. Harmonic functions (which might by another possible title for this article, but already taken for the mathematical usage) are found and make sense only in tonal music. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Streets of Rage (series) → Streets of Rage – The Streets of Rage series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:

    "...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. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

    ...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Based on → Template:Work by author – I just realized this can be used more than just the |based_on= parameter in infoboxes, such as |opentheme= and |endtheme= for television series/movies, like at Invisible Sister (permalink). Therefore I suggest moving it to a more generic title. I'm open to any better name suggestions as well. Note to closer: If moved, the template must be immediately updated to use the new module name, as there are no redirects in the Module namespace. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Settle-Carlisle Line → Settle to Carlisle Line – I actually think something of a consensus was starting to form for this new title in the discussion above, but I won't challenge the close since it wasn't actually the proposed title - it will be easier to reopen with the new proposal. My reasoning? WP:CONSISTENCY mainly. Take a look at, and you'll see this one is clearly the outlier. All other lines are named with "A to B Line" format, for example Leeds to Morecambe Line, Liverpool to Wigan Line, etc. The argument made above that this terminology should only apply for one direction lines isn't really valid, since all those other examples are also two-way lines. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Un Samayal Arayil → Oggarane (film) – It's more commonly known by it's Kannada name Oggarane. The Tamil and the Telugu versions were unsuccessful at the box office, while the Kannada version became a major success.[1][2][3] Telugu and Tamil received mixed reviews while the Kannada version received positive reviews.[4][5][6] So it should be renamed and move to Oggarane (film).

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXLZGcb__I
  2. ^ http://www.rediff.com/movies/report/prakash-rajs-oggarane-is-a-huge-success-at-the-box-office-south/20140616.htm
  3. ^ http://www.indiaglitz.com/Oggarane-Success-kannada-news-108987
  4. ^ http://karnataka.indiaeveryday.in/news-movie-review-oggarane-a-must-watch-for-prakash-rajs-1488-7044955.htm
  5. ^ http://entertainment.oneindia.in/kannada/reviews/2014/oggarane-ogarne-movie-review-142768.html
  6. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movie-reviews/Oggarane/movie-review/36281393.cms
Ab abhi (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice → ? – The show formerly called "Under the Ice" no longer carries that title. For the last two seasons, it's been called "Bering Sea Gold" while the companion show has always been called "Bering Sea Gold". This either indicates that there has never been two separate TV shows, and it has always only been one TV show (ie. like 'SASUKE spring' and 'SASUKE autumn'), or there is no functional difference between the two shows (ie. like "Wipeout" and "Wipeout: Winter Edition"). As the "Under the Ice" show no longer carries that title, (not since 2014) it needs to be renamed. The "Under the Ice" show documents the spring dredging season under the sea ice (which aired in the autumn), while the original titled show documented the summer dredging season (which aired in the spring). Functionally, this could mean that "Under the Ice" be renamed Bering Sea Gold (formerly "Under the Ice") or Bering Sea Gold (spring mining season) or Bering Sea Gold (autumn TV season), and the originally named show could be Bering Sea Gold (not formerly "Under the Ice") or Bering Sea Gold (summer mining season) or Bering Sea Gold (spring TV season). If these two are in fact not two separate shows but only one show, then the articles should be merged. Whatever is the case, either merger or renaming needs to be done, as it can't remain the way it is since the two shows have the same name. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

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


See also[edit]

The current Wikipedia time is:
07:42, Saturday, October 22, 2016 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=745255179"