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 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

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 20 October 2020" 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
| 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. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds.

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 20 October 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2020 (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 20 October 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2020 (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 20 October 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2020‎ (UTC)

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.
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 20 October 2020

– why Example (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2020 (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 20 October 2020

– why Example (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2020 (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.


  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. 48 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

October 20, 2020

  • (Discuss)Dred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott decision – Per WP:COMMONNAME. It may be an unusual way to refer to a court case but it is how this one is usually reffered to: *Google Ngrams: [1] *Encyclopædia Brittanica: [2] Since someone might bring this up: most sources that use "v. Sandford" do so out of conformity with formal court case naming conventions, and the nature of these sources suggests this: *Oyez: [3] *Legal Information Institute: [4] *American Bar Association: [5] Article titles are supposed to reflect common usage so we should not go off the above examples, but the first two I mentioned. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

October 19, 2020

  • (Discuss)NGC 2392Eskimo Nebula – This page was renamed without any clear consensus after the NASA statement following the media frenzy about BLM: honestly this is deprecable for WP:Neutrality, WP:Common name (and WP:Astro naming conventions), and especially Wikipedia:Recentism in some way. Thinking that Eskimo is an old nickname is also a nonsense: it's widely used and still will be for long time, and most probably it will also survive the current days, given the wide amount of literature (scientific but also divulgative) already made: looking through Google books, Eskimo Nebula appears to have become the primary name around 1970. Google search for "Eskimo Nebula" has 266,000 results, while "NGC 2392" has 155,000 results, and this is absolutely notable given that "Eskimo Nebula" includes only english results, while "NGC 2392" includes results in all existing languages. Not to mention that the NASA is not the lone authority in astronomy, as well as the US are not the only english language country, and english culture is not the only culture of the world. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)House Peters Sr.House Peters – per WP:COMMONNAME. In the past, English Wikipedia has had a number of uniquely-named father-son disambiguation pages, such as Ross Bagdasarian, Noah Beery, Perry Botkin, Lon Chaney or Douglas Fairbanks in which the father was listed as "Sr." and the son as "Jr." However, none of the fathers used "Sr." as part of his common name, while the sons were usually or always referenced as "Jr." All of the above dab pages have now been merged into each respective father's article and each article's header has been shorn of the generational suffix "Sr.", with the addition of a hatnote stating, For his son, see House Peters Jr., or whichever name is appropriate for each individual instance. In the case at hand, "House Peters" already redirects to House Peters Sr. who had been a film star and has a star on Hollywood Walk of Fame, while his son, House Peters Jr., was a supporting player and character actor. The hatnote atop House Peters would suffice for House Peters Jr. and obviate the extra step of going through the dab page. — Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 17:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)JacindaJacinda (disambiguation) – (and this page redirecting to Jacinda Ardern). The NZ Prime Minister is the primary topic, right now is one of the most famous and important people on the planet, and is likely to be the best-known Jacinda for a long time, in my view. A Google News search returns the first hit for somebody else, an obituary on Jacinda Barclay, after at least 30 pieces about Ardern. A straight Google search took me to page 4 before I found a reference to Jacinda Humphry. All of that spells out "primary topic" to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Come Back, Little Sheba (1978 film)Come Back, Little Sheba (1977 film) – There are several problems with this article, starting with it acting like this TV film is a British production, when it is apparently a British-American co-production. But the bigger issue is that while it apparently premiered in the UK on 1 January 1978, according to this source, this TV film actually debuted in the U.S. on 31 December 1977 (source is from Dec. 30, and describes the U.S. debut as happening "tomorrow" at 9pm, which would be the night of Saturday, Dec. 31). As we usually disambigate by when films "premiere", this should be moved to Come Back, Little Sheba (1977 film) based on the U.S. premiere date. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 18, 2020

  • (Discuss)The Mandalorian (Star Wars character)The Mandalorian (character) – Since no one brought it up, according to this section of WP:NCTV, "If the character's name is the same as the show's title or if the character appears in many different titles, use Character name (character). Horacio Vara (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)N-Butanol1-Butanol – This page should be moved to be consistent with the nomenclature format used for articles for other straight-chain primary alcohols, such as 1-propanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, and so on. Use of the "n-" prefix is technically incorrect nomenclature, as it is meant to be used with an alkyl group designation (as in n-butyl alcohol) whereas substitutive names take a numeric prefix, as in the proposed name, though "1-" and "n-" are informally used interchangeably. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mohun Bagan A.C.ATK Mohun Bagan FC – I think that the Mohun Bagan A.C. wikipedia page is mostly based on the football division of the Indian club commonly called Mohun Bagan. Now, the fact that the name of the football division of Mohun Bagan has been changed to ATK Mohun Bagan FC is clear from this report in which an official letter from the Secretary of the IFA (WB) has been cited. It contains an utmost important note about the official correspondence between the parties and the governing body of football in the state of West Bengal that,

    Mohun Bagan A.C. wishes to change its IFA affiliation to ATK Mohun Bagan Pvt. Ltd. and Kolkata Games and Sports Pvt. Ltd. (ATK Club) desires to get disaffiliated from IFA

    . This shows that we can safely say that ATK Mohun Bagan FC is a rebranded version of Mohun Bagan (Football Division). Not only this but also the Entry Manual for AFC Club Competitions (2021 edition) might be very helpful in deciding it. The Sporting criteria for a club to enter AFC Competitions include as the first point,

    9.1. To meet the sporting criteria, a club must have earned one (1) of the following (which shall be applied in descending order to determine the representative clubs of a Member Association): 9.1.1. winner of the domestic top division league; 9.1.2. winner of the domestic cup; 9.1.3. runner-up of the domestic top division league; 9.1.4. third place of the domestic top division league; 9.1.5. fourth place of the domestic top division league (only if there is no domestic cup applicable for Article 9.1.2).

    So, if ATK Mohun Bagan was any new club it could not qualify for the AFC Cup 2021. However, ATK Mohun Bagan FC has been confirmed about a group stage direct entry at AFC Cup 2021, the slot that is meant for the I-League champions of India. Mohun Bagan under the ownership of Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Pvt. Ltd. own the I-League 2019-2020. This proves that Mohun Bagan have earned their place by virtue of winning the I-League and have retained it because ATK Mohun Bagan FC is simply a rechristened form of Mohun Bagan. Both the points mentioned above had been there earlier also but the previous move requests could not succeed in gaining consensus. I am making this move request (little quickly than is usual after unsuccessful RM) on the basis of some later sources to back up the genuineness. The statementfrom Nita Ambani, Founder & Chairperson, Football Sports Development Limited (FSDL), while welcoming East Bengal brand into the ISL included,

    The inclusion of both legacy clubs, i.e. East Bengal and Mohun Bagan (now ATK Mohun Bagan) opens limitless possibilities for Indian football

    (then, i.e., 27 September 2020, the name of East Bengal football division was undecided). This statement also showed the name change explicitly. The message of congratulations on the day of Mohun Bagan being presented with the I-League trophy (18 October 2020 IST) from the Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee read

    Heartiest congratulations to @Mohun_Bagan for becoming @ILeagueOfficial Champions. Wonderful achievement for the Green & Maroon Brigade & best wishes as you step into upcoming @IndSuperLeague season as @atkmohunbaganfc. (hashtag)Champions5

    Note the words as you step into upcoming @IndSuperLeague season as @atkmohunbaganfc showing the continuity of Mohun Bagan in the form of ATK Mohun Bagan FC. Another message for congratulations coming from Minister of State (Government of India) Kiren Rijiju read

    This is that famous festive football frenzy of Kolkata I like the most about! Heartiest congratulations to —@Mohun_Bagan for becoming @ILeagueOfficial Champions. My best wishes for the upcoming @IndSuperLeague season as @atkmohunbaganfc

    Another seal on the very fact that ATK Mohun Bagan is undoubtedly another rechristened version of the football division of Mohun Bagan A.C. I request for the obvious move to be done with no separate page leftover in the name of Mohun Bagan. The main couple of divisions of Mohun Bagan A.C. will then have separate pages devoted to both of them (Football division at ATK Mohun Bagan FC and Cricket division at Mohun Bagan A.C. (Cricket)). I request every user participating in the debate to help keep the discussion organised. Also East Bengal fans are requested to keep things civil. Ardent fans make Indian football beautiful but please do not restart efforts to show ATK Mohun Bagan as a separate so called 'new club' (which it is absolutely not) if this move request reaches consensus in its favour. Do not try to malign an established institution. Thanks. M Kariyappa (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)La Banque postaleLa Banque Postale – This is a "neutral" discussion-opener. An editor recently changed the capitalization within the article and added {{DISPLAYTITLE:La Banque Postale}} which does not work (see WP:DISPLAYTITLE). I checked the official web page. While that web page typically uses an "all caps" font, where it does not, it uses "La Banque Postale." Based on the log history of this page and La Banque Postale, the company may have changed its "capitalization style" sometime since this Wikipedia page was created. Note that the French version of this article, fr:La Banque postale, still retains the lowercase "postale." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)X-COMXCOM – The series has used the "XCOM" moniker, sans the hyphen, for 5 games now - more than the running time of many entire series. While I respect that the original game used the hyphen, the page should reflect the current name of the series, which is decidedly without it. For example, Soulcalibur is not called Soul Edge. Ace Combat is not called Air Combat. And so forth. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Relisted. 2pou (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tier 3Tier 3 (nightclub) – No clear primary topic given the other 3 topics in the hatnote and Tier 3 Railway lines. Google and Images only return the coronavirus topic and Books doesn't appear to return anything for the nightclub. Views[[8]] show that the nightclub gets 179 but Data center got 17,150, the coronavirus topic got 2,845, the vehicle got 1,572 and Wheatbelt railway lines of Western Australia got 355. Although this might be recentism and there is no way to tell how many readers were looking for the other topics it still doesn't seem likely that this nightclub is primary. Note that Tier 1 and Tier 2 are also DAB pages. Other options for the target are Tier 3 (New York City) or simply Tier 3 (New York). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2014 Super 4's T202014 Super 4's T20 – I don't know what was going on with these Sri-Lanka T20's at this point. Anyway, the sources [9] on the page seem to call the tournament Sri Lanka Super Four T20 or Sri Lanka Cricket Super Four T20 and so does cricinfo [10] who gives the non sponsored 2013 version that name. Cricinfo also uses that name on the results page on the tournament here [11]. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I very well could be. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

October 17, 2020

  • (Discuss)FFG(X)Constellation-class frigate – This class has officially been named and I don't see any compelling reason to delay this move. Since a user above was at least hesitant about an immediate move, I have invoked the discussion process rather than asking for a technical move request. Safiel (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BilCat (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Arago spotPoisson spot – <poisson spot> (without the possessive) is the historically attested name for this phenomenon. it is i think uninformed to claim [see comments following] that "It is not established, however, that "Poisson's Spot" [sic] is the most common name for it." simply using google to crowd source the term "poisson spot" yields "about 10.9 million references", versus "arago spot" (~300,000 citations) or "arago's spot" (~400,000 mentions). and to Srleffler's tendentious comment that "google counts are not really accurate," does he assert that google counts have error bounds exceeding two orders of magnitude? a search on finds roughly four times as many cites with "poisson" as with "arago". the first citation (footnote) of the article refers to an authoritative source article titled, "Poisson spot." H.R. Suiter's "Star Testing Astronomical Telescopes" attests "This little bright patch is still called *Poisson's spot*." ... and so on. it is possible that there is a continental (french?) bias for one term over another, but in the anglophone literature there is only trivial dispute by any measure i can find.Drollere (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Group Chat with Jayden & BrentGroup Chat (talk show) – OK, I'm calling it – this show is not defined by its "hosts". It has now gone through three title iterations in a relatively short time: Group Chat with Annie & Jayden, Group Chat with Jayden & Brent, and now as of this weekend it's Group Chat with Young Dylan & That Girl Lay Lay. Better that the article simply be at the generic title "Group Chat" (Group Chat: The Show also redirects here), with "(talk show)" as a disambiguator – while the show does have "game aspects", it's closest to being a "talk show" as defined as per WP:NCTV. For a similar situation, see: The Late Late Show (American talk show). --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ONTV (pay TV)ON TV (subscription TV) – In 2012, this article was moved from "ON-TV" to the present title of "ONTV (pay TV)", with the reasoning, Whom ever originally created this article did so incorrectly as ON-TV, When ONTV premiered in Chicago in 1977 it was promoted as ONTV Subscription Television with no dashes or spaces ... It was never promoted or advertised as ON-TV. The problem here is that, in some markets, it was. News articles on this subscription TV service, sometimes even in the same newspaper, were inconsistent. As ON TV was not a monolithic operation (its Detroit, Cincinnati and Portland versions were franchised and not owned by Oak Industries), sometimes its affiliates, particularly with regard to Detroit, used hyphenation ("ON-TV"). And "ONTV" is the rarest form in contemporary materials. (Sometimes, it went by "ON", or especially in Detroit, "ON Subscription TV".) These print ads from all of the ON TV markets except Cincinnati, which apparently never ran major print advertising, show a tendency to ON TV (space), except Detroit: *ON TV (Chicago): *ON TV (Miami): *ON-TV (Detroit): *ON TV (Phoenix): *ON TV (LA): — also used “ON” in promos *ON TV (DFW): *ON TV (PDX): — also one case of "ON-TV" (hyphen) Newspaper articles tended toward the hyphen, but not consistently. The Cincinnati Enquirer used all three forms: hyphen, space, and the rare none. In Chicago, the none form was used, but also it was hyphenated and spaced. In my opinion, the evidence leans toward using a space, particularly given that all five of the Oak-owned ON TV systems (which were Chicago, Miami, Phoenix, LA and DFW) utilized a space in their own print advertising. Also, I changed the disambiguator to "subscription TV" to reflect the terminology used at the time for the entire industry (indeed the LA subsidiary was "National Subscription Television"). Raymie (tc) 04:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gentleman RegReg Vermue – This article pertains to a musician who has recently shifted the stage name he's known by; formerly known as Gentleman Reg, he now uses the performing name Regina Gently, thus leaving us with two competing titles. Accordingly, this should be handled like Dan Snaith, where we handled the Caribou-vs.-Daphni dilemma by just having both stage names redirect to his actual name instead of warring over which stage name should be given precedence over the other. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ina BoykoIna Budestean – This is her actual identity with which she was already cap-tied to Moldova, her actual country, more than two years before her illegal Azerbaijani naturalization (involving the fake surname of Boyko and a fake year of birth), which was later reverted by the player after it was detected and punished by UEFA. Sources in the article.--MonFrontieres (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

October 16, 2020

  • (Discuss)1973 Thai popular uprising14 October 1973 uprising – The event is most commonly known by the date, especially in Thailand. While various date formats are used, some omitting the day or the year, the full date would be the most specific and the DMY format matches what is used in the article. As an aside, "student uprising" appears to be in more common use than "popular uprising", but it's a bit hard to tell since an Ngram comparison will also include references to the Athens Polytechnic uprising. Pinging RJFF, who made the move to the current title in 2013. Paul_012 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Toilet (room)Toilet room – Toilets are not types of rooms. They are bathroom equipments used for disposal of human urines and feces. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HighQ (software)HighQ Solutions – Please update the name of the page to HighQ Solutions to create clarity around the company that is being referred to. This is inline with a legal co-existence agreement between HighQ Solutions Ltd. and HighQ Computer GmbH. Thank you. Stuart Barr (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Epileptic seizureSeizure – I propose this move for three reasons. Firstly, the title is needlessly disambiguated - "seizure" (general) redirects here. Secondly, epilepsy is the tendency to experience recurrent seizures, whereas this article is about the event of a seizure. These are two separate concepts and, whilst there is a lot of overlap, it is clearer to have them divided as seizure and epilepsy. Thirdly, what about seizures that are not epileptic? The parent article "seizure" (which should be this article) should cover all seizures, and then direct to seizure types for types of seizures, and epilepsy for the condition relating to having recurrent seizures Tom (LT) (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 15, 2020

  • (Discuss)Names for United States citizensDemonyms for the United States – It's been suggested that Demonyms for the United States would be better, technically referring to people who are nationals but not citizens of the United States. The current title is also sort of a mess, should be United States' citizens, but even that's really newspaper headline shorthand for citizens of the United States, so the nice, succinct Demonyms for the United States is shorter, cleaner, and more grammatical. Since the origin discussion was a bit vague, I thought I'd just make a cleaner discussion. WilyD 13:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

October 14, 2020

  • (Discuss)ZaporizhiaZaporizhzhia – Wikipedia guidelines tell us to name articles based on commonly used name in up-to-date, reliable sources. Relevant: * WP:TITLE “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” ** WP:COMMONNAME,“generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.” ** WP:NAMECHANGES: “we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.” * WP:PLACE: “a widely accepted English name, in a modern context,” “For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed” * WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one.” “Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.” * WP:WIAN: “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current,” “English-language news media,” “standard histories and scientific studies.” Recommends a list of specific sources, which support the move. There are three commonly used names, and none is an outstanding winner in the popularity contest (see the search results survey, below). But Zaporizhzhia is the romanized Ukrainian name according to most of the schemes documented in Romanization of Ukrainian, including six of the English-language-oriented ones (the other three exceptions are outdated systems: Zaporizhzhya in the British Standard and BGN/PCGN 1965, Zaporizhia in Ukrainian National 1996, and others are European systems that give us Zaporižžja and the like). As a matter of Wikipedia history, the current article title was chosen to conform to the now-superseded Ukrainian National 1996 system. Critically, Zaporizhzhia is the name given by the Ukrainian National 2010 system which has also been adopted as official by the authoritative UNGEGN in 2012 and the BGN/PCGN in 2020, so this spelling now appears in most geo-name databases, maps, and other references, and will continue to be used going forward. Examples include the UN’s Toponymic Guidelines for Map and Other Editors for International Use,[13] and the BGN/PCGN’s geo names search,[14], and English-language references and style guides that ultimately refer to them. The Ukrainian oblast (region) is named after the city in all languages, and should carry the same name per WP:CONSISTENCY with other members of Category:Oblasts of Ukraine. Note that this is not the oblast’s official name, which is Запорізька област or just Запорізька in Cyrillic and Zaporizka oblast or Zaporizka in Latin-alphabet text. Below are my results of a search survey. Please remember to consider WP:GOOG when interpreting search results, notably that the estimates at the top of each search page are wrong and you have to page to the end to see real numbers, and that your results will vary from mine based on your logged-in status, location, and the ambient temperature on Mars. And most importantly, that Web Search includes few reliable sources while Books and Scholar includes many. {| class="wikitable" style="width:30em;" |+ style="text-align:left;" | Google Web Search
    (advanced search, English, last year, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia) |- | style="width:50%;" | Zaporizhia 149 || Zaporizhia Oblast 114 |- | Zaporizhzhia 154 || Zaporizhzhia Oblast 68 |- | Zaporizhzhya 161 || Zaporizhzhya Oblast 45 |- | || Zaporizka oblast 75 |} {| class="wikitable" style="width:30em;" |+ style="text-align:left;" | Google Books
    (advanced search, English, 21st century, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia) |- | style="width:50%;" | Zaporizhia 3,760 (11 pages) || Zaporizhia Oblast 668 (4) |- | Zaporizhzhia 3,370 (10) || Zaporizhzhia Oblast 340 (5) |- | Zaporizhzhya 4,380 (9) || Zaporizhzhya Oblast 31 (4) |- | || Zaporizka oblast 224 (3) |} {| class="wikitable" style="width:30em;" |+ style="text-align:left;" | Google Scholar
    (since 2020, with quotation marks and -Wikipedia) |- | style="width:50%;" | Zaporizhia 272 (13) || Zaporizhia Oblast 16 (1) |- | Zaporizhzhia 930 (47) || Zaporizhzhia Oblast 16 (1) |- | Zaporizhzhya 438 (21) || Zaporizhzhya Oblast 7 (1) |- | || Zaporizka oblast 2 |}  —Michael Z. 21:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Iris sofarana → ? – Iris sofarana is a synonym of Iris susiana, only proper species currently have articles, plus there is a redirect from Iris susiana that is coming here. I tried to delete but it was reverted back DavidAnstiss (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kadathur (Dharmapuri)KadathurMassviews of the pages that could have the ambiguous title leave this topic looking like the primary, so the old move to a qualified title wasn't needed. The existing redirect would be deleted to return this page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ISO/TS 16949IATF 16949 – ISO/TS 16949 is no longer the correct title. In 2016, ISO issued a press release updating and renaming this document from ISO/TS 16949 to IATF 16949 (full title:IATF 16949:2016). See Joint Press Release issued[1] by ISO/IATF. (Archive: [2])


  1. ^ "ISO /IATF Joint Press Release" (PDF). IATF Website. IATF. Retrieved 2020-10-07.
  2. ^ " Mirror" (PDF).
Blackplate (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GlutonnyGlutonny (gamer) – It's hard to imagine that this isn't a common misspelling. As such I'd imagine there are a lot of WP:SURPRISE instances when someone searches for the sin and happens upon... some pro gamer. Unlike the typical uses of WP:SMALLDETAILS, we aren't talking about a proper name here, but a basic word. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Aragonese CortsCortes of Aragon – Actual, correct translation (example) and WP:COMMONNAME. Also, all non-English names have the "Cortes" + "of" + "Aragón" structure, so the current title looks weird. (Edited 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)). Note WP:NCGAL as well, when it establishes that, for articles on government departments, agencies, and officials, we should Use official names in article titles, and that When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored Impru20talk 16:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Anda CircleAnda Monument – Current article discusses both the roundabout (Anda Circle) and the Anda Monument (the monument itself; although it is often erroneously referred to as the "Anda Circle"). Clearly the monument is more notable and historically relevant than the two. Most published sources on the Anda Circle focuses on the monument rather than the road itself. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GugadjaKukatja (Western Australia) – After a lot of untangling around these names, I have renamed some Aboriginal groups and languages as per currently preferred names as per preferred source (AIATSIS AUSTLANG) and recent articles such as this and this. This one is slightly more tricky because Kukatja is the preferred name of this people, but there is a DAB page of that name. At this point I have used Kukatja (Western Australia) to redirect to this page, but adding this here for discussion as I'm not sure whether it's preferable to renamed Kukatja as Kukatja (disambiguation) instead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

October 13, 2020

  • (Discuss)List of Star Trek fictional worksList of Star Trek tie-in fiction – The title fictional works is ambiguous and misleading. The Star Trek franchise is a work of fiction, etc. The works listed in the article include in-universe references and biographies, as well as photo comics, children's picture books, and original audiobooks. These works do not align with the already massive list of novels, or any potential list of reference works or comics. I believe List of Star Trek tie-in fiction is more appropriate. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Reece James (footballer, born 1999)Reece James – There are two pages for footballers named Reece James. One plays in the third tier of English football, while the other has just been called up to the England national team. I propose that, because of the vast difference in coverage between the only two people on Wikipedia named Reece James, we move Reece James (footballer, born 1999) to Reece James. We could possibly create a new page titled Reece James (disambiguation), to list Reece James (footballer, born 1993), as well as Rhys James and Reece Flanagan, who are currently listed on the Reece James page as it stands. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AntinousAntinoös – Antinoös is the proper translation of the name Ἀντίνοος. Antinoüs is also possible, as a Latinized form, but the present name "Antinous", is the worst of all worlds because, lacking a diaeresis, there's nothing to notify the reader that the two vowels at the end are not pronounced as a diphthong but as two separate sounds. This is mostly a typographic issue, but one where, unlike many published sources, we are not limited to avoiding diaereses by publishers' style guides which occasionally (and lazily) discard it. Indeed, Wikipedia guidance for Romanization of Greek recommends a diaeresis where such a one exists in Greek, as in this case. These points were raised when the page Antinoöpolis was moved by consensus Talk:Antinoöpolis#Requested_move_19_January_2020 to its present name. The proposed change would also ensure uniformity not only with the Egyptian city where the youth was deified, but with articles with similarly doubled-omicron names, like Heroön, Boötes, Meröe, etc. In English-language academia the "-oös/-oos" is usually preferred to the Latinized "-oüs/-ous", and in either case the diaeresis going missing is an artefact of difficulties with printing with ink, a casual attitude to orthography, or an immersion in Italianate art-history, in which the Latinate "Antinous" is often used for statuary, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Legend of Kyrandia: Fables and FiendsThe Legend of Kyrandia – The title of this article is incorrect (it mistakenly assumes the series title "Fables and Fiends" is this series entry title), and the original article location was most consistent with the article titles of other games in the series. Ideally, this "Legend of Kyrandia" article should have links to other games in the series in a hatnote for disambiguation, since the other games are part of the same canon. If an article on all of the Kyrandia games is written, its proper title should be "Fable and Fiends," the official series name. For sources and more information, see the Legend of Kyrandia or Westwood Studios template talk pages. Jellocube (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Feminicides in Ciudad JuárezFemicides in Ciudad JuárezTbhotch moved this page from "Female homicides" to "Feminicides"--that's a great improvement, but it seems to me that "Femicide" is a more accepted word, and that "Feminicide" is an all-too close translation of the Spanish. I can't easily count the hits in Google Books, and there are plenty for each one. But our own article is called Femicide, and looking through the article, I see only one hit for "feminicide" in the references: Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008), "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007"--and perhaps ironically that's published in a book called Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability. And "femicide" occurs six or seven times in the references for the article. In other words, I think there's enough reason to move the article. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Boris CespedesBoris Céspedes – Subject's last name now goes in its original Spanish form (with an acute accent mark in the first "e") as he now caps for his country of birth, Spanish-speaking Bolivia. Bolivian Football Federation (FBF) source in comment.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fa HaiFahai – Should this article name be Fahai - according to Chinese name system?. Pls discuss below. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)N95 maskFiltering facepiece respirator – We've had a good WP:BRD cycle, but we've reached the limits of what an unstructured discussion can accomplish, so I'd like to lay out a reogranization proposal to get the !votes to settle this. The proposal is to rename this article to Filtering facepiece respirator and rewrite it to include non-U.S. sources. User:HLHJ has volunteered to do the bulk of the rewriting, who has already made extensive contributions to other respirator articles. People have pointed to WP:COMMONNAME as a reason for keeping the current article title. However, recognizability is only one of five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, with precision being equally important. Also, the N95 standard is a U.S.-specific standard, and we should consider whether the best article organization is to cover all filtering facepiece respirators in a single article, given the similarity of the standards. The advantages for making the change are as follows: * The N95 standard is one of nine U.S. standards (N/R/P × 95/99/100) used for filtering facepiece respirators that differ in the oil resistance and exact filtration efficiency. They are all used under similar circumstances and the same guidance mostly applies to all of them. It wouldn't make sense to have nine articles about each of the standards, since the differences can be explained fairly succinctly in a combined article. * Similarly, filtering facepiece respirator standards tend to be fairly similar across jurisdictions. The technical differences tend to be subtle, such as the exact test particulate material used and the exact air flow velocity used in testing. There are correspondences of respirator standards that are generally considered to be functionally equivalent in practice, for example N95/FFP2/KN95 respirators. While separate articles for U.S., EU, Chinese, etc. might draw off of guidance from the separate jurisdictions, in practice they would overlap greatly, and again it would be more efficient to note any differences succinctly in a combined article. * The title "N95 mask" is ambiguous in a different regard: N95 filters in a different form may be used for elastomeric respirators, which are not covered in this article. Currently, a hatnote explains this. (This is not the case in the EU, where filters for elastomeric respirators are named "P1/2/3" rather than "FFP1/2/3".) In conclusion, I believe the best article organization would be to have a single article on Filtering facepiece respirator concentrating on the similarities between them. Details specific to each jurisdiction's standards should be in a series of articles that cover each set of filter standards as a whole (NIOSH air filtration rating, European Union air filtration rating, Chinese air filtration rating, etc.). John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wargame (video games)Computer wargame – Per the lack of dissent in this WPVG thread, I propose that this article be moved to reflect the vast, vast usage of the term "computer wargame" by reliable sources. It stretches from the 1980s through today. There is no term for this genre more prominent or more widely-accepted than "computer wargame"; Wikipedia already, correctly, uses the term "board wargame" that reliable sources have used to delineate tabletop and computer-based titles for decades. It may seem strange to use "computer" in an article title, given that the WPVG MOS requires us to call computer games "video games", but this is a unique case. Wargame is one word; it cannot be written as war video game, in the way that we generalized computer role-playing games as role-playing video games. Video wargame is rarely used by reliable sources compared to computer wargame, and using it as the Wikipedia standard would give undue weight to the term. The current title of this page is vague, has no basis in reliable sources and cannot be delineated from board wargames in an article's text body: if you simply call something a wargame, it's a coin-toss whether you're talking about a board or computer game. The reader has no way of determining which it is without clicking a bluelink and seeing the parenthetical part of this page's title. Additionally, readers and editors familiar with the genre will be confused by the "Wargame (video games)" title in general, as it has no relationship with the way this genre is discussed anywhere besides Wikipedia itself. All of this makes for a counter-intuitive experience for both readers and editors, and does not reflect the way reliable sources describe the genre. For all of these reasons, I think it's necessary to move the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Bayes' theoremBayes's theoremBayes's is the style preferred by Wikipedia for non-plurals ending in s. This move has been attempted before but there is a redirect page called Bayes's theorem and apparently a problem arose with multiple redirects. I think the current position should be reversed - there should be a redirect page called Bayes' theorem which redirects to this page, which should be renamed Bayes's theorem Moletrouser (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Putt-Putt Fun CenterPutt-Putt, LLC – Putt-Putt, LLC or Putt-Putt Golf Courses of America, Inc., are the names of the company selling "Putt-Putt" franchises. "Putt-Putt Fun Center" is a brand name for the Putt-Putt family entertainment centers, but only since 2010. Previously, the brand was "Putt-Putt Golf". This article should be about the whole business topic, not just the recent rebranding of some (most?) franchises. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sahaj MargHeartfulness Meditation – As per prior discussions on this article and the guidance given by Onel5969, adding a request to delete the redirect in Heartfulness Meditation article and move this page to Heartfulness Mediation. Main reason is, this practice is now popularly known as Heartfulness Meditation. See evidence of this in the discussion below. Xiantec (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hamburg MuseumMuseum for Hamburg History – Procedural nomination, copying User:Johnbod's comment at WP:CFDS: This is a mess! Their website uses "Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte" ("Museum for Hamburg History"). The article claims (unreferenced) that "The museum was named hamburgmuseum in 2006" but I can't see web refs for this on a quick look. "Hamburg Museum" appears to be wiki-home-made. There are several museums in H, run by a body that could be called "Hamburg Museums" in English, but the article is only about the history one. Rename the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Uka (singer)Uka – The singer seems to be the primary topic for "Uka". According to the article, the village has been uninhabited for over 40 years, so there's unlikely to a be a lot of people interested in it. The singer, on the other hand, is apparently the most popular Mongolian musician at the moment. Pageview statistics show that the singer's page gets around 40 times as many views as the village. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 12:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Al-Umdan CaravansaraiInn of the PillarsWP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME. The sources referenced in the article call this "Inn of the Pillars", although my wider search indicates that "the" seems optional. "Caravansarai" is an alternative spelling of "caravanserai" – the article uses both – but my gsearch turns up nothing using this term beyond dictionary definitions and (rather oddly) stock photo listings. The word translates as "khan", but if we prefer the Arabic we should title the article Khan Al-Umdan and not mix languages. (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SSV NormandyNormandy (Mass Effect) – I propose that the title of this article be renamed or moved to Normandy (Mass Effect), per WP:COMMONNAME. A google news archive search gives 8,750 results for Normandy Mass Effect, compared to 398 results for SSV Normandy. I also notice that many of the cited sources actually refer to the topic or subject as simply "The Normandy", while specific ship designations like "SSV" or "SR-1" are often omitted. In-universe wise, the Normandy SR-2 is an entirely new ship which happens to emulate the original's design and bear the same name as opposed to a reconstruction. PC Gamer specifically referred to the SSV as the original ship destroyed at the beginning of ME2. The Normandy Crash Site DLC even has the player visiting the remains of the original Normandy, so the SR-2 is clearly not rebuilt or salvaged in any meaningful way from the original as asserted in the article. Naming the article Normandy (Mass Effect) broadly and adequately covers both iterations of the starship and any relevant sub-topics (including potential subsections for its pilot and AI), and SSV Normandy is perfectly fine as a redirect when performing a search. Haleth (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shohei ImamuraShōhei Imamura – Of the three editors who supported the previous RM back in 2012, two were site-banned shortly thereafter for reasons directly (Kauffner) or indirectly (JoshuSasori) related to their consistent "anti-diacritic" stance, and the other is no longer active, so the RM's status as a precedent is questionable to begin with. The 2012 RM cited movie posters and DVD covers -- the links are all, naturally, broken now, but searching for promotional materials for his two most famous films now, I found three pages[19][20][21] on the Cannes website that mostly spell his name with a circonflexe as "Shôhei IMAMURA" (this is common in French-language texts about Japan, since circonflexes are native to French but macrons are not, while English, which doesn't have any common native diacritics, uses the macron; compare [22] with [23]) but other Japanese names like the composer "Shinichiro IKEBE", the actor "Koji YAKUSHO" and the character "Takuro Yamashita" with no diacritic. Does this mean Imamura personally preferred the long vowel in his name be indicated?); the French poster for Unagi writes his name in all-caps and so does the French thing by leaving off all diacritics, and various English posters such as this one put great emphasis on the film's Palme d'Or status, write his name in all-caps, and also follow the French style. Narayama is a bit more complicated -- this poster (?) writes his name in all-caps but does use the circonflexe (despite being in English), while this apparently much older one is not in all-caps but leaves off any diacritics and this French one does the same. Given this, it would seem that, if Imamura had any personal preference, in 1983 he preferred no diacritic (or had no preference) but changed his mind by 1997, then in 2012 some English Wikipedia editors claimed that "Shohei Imamura" had been the form personally or professionally used by the person; more likely, though, I'd say Imamura was like 99% of Japanese and didn't really mind how foreign-language texts spelled his name in non-Japanese scripts, and so we get Routledge's Japanese Cinema: Texts and Contexts writing his name with a macron, Jasper Sharp's Historical Dictionary of Japanese Cinema using a circumflex, and Cinematheque Ontario's Shohei Imamura no diacritic. Given this, we might turn to WP:COMMONNAME, but: (i) it has historically been very difficult to use search engines, which are made (or deliberately optimized?) to ignore diacritics, to determine whether a macronned form of a Japanese name is more or less common than the circumflexed or the undiacriticized; (ii) the large number of mainstream, reliable sources cited above that exclusively use one or another apparently without comment indicates that none will hurt the subject's recognition to readers familiar with any other form; and (iii) when it comes to variations on the Hepburn system of romanization of Japanese names, it's debatable whether or not (ii) always applies regardless of whether reliable sources are present to demonstrate as much and therefore COMMONNAME may not apply to such matters to begin with (the examples cited at WP:COMMONNAME, which all show clearly very different names such as "Bono" vs. "Paul Hewson", would seem to support this). TLDR: There's inconsistency among English and other European reliable sources, and no evidence that Imamura himself personally or professionally used one form or another, so we should default to Wikipedia's MOS, which is also in accord with the most widely-used English-language scholarly literature on Japanese topics. Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)University of DelhiDelhi University – As per WP:COMMONNAME. University of Delhi is the official name, but except for official channels and list of rankings, it is rarely used. The faculty, students, alumni, general populace and the media all either refer it to as Delhi University or as DU (nickname derived from Delhi University). The worldwide google trend for last 12 months [24] shows Delhi University being searched 4 times more than University of Delhi. When DU is added to the trends, it dwarfs University of Delhi by 14 times [25] (this result only includes searches in India as "du" is a popular French term, rendering all worldwide results useless). Just recent articles (within last 3 days) in all top media houses refer to as Delhi University or DU [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Roller26 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Government of ExpertsTechnocratic government (Italy) – This article is very specific about the technocratic governments in Italy, and it is not true that there are no other experiences of such governments outside of Italy, so for disambiguation purposes this should point to "Italy" as the main subject. As a matter of fact, very recently Lebanon formed a technocratic government,[1] Romania had a technocratic government between 2015 and 2017, Greece had the Papademos cabinet in 2011, Austria in 2019, and one could look up fore more and more examples. Also, I would use the form "technocratic government" instead of "government of experts", because it's more used in the English news and media, and it is also closer to the terminology used in Italy (governo tecnico).


  1. ^ "Lebanon forms government of technocrats to confront crises". Retrieved 8 October 2020.
Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


TamilMirchi (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alfred J. GrossIrving "Al" Gross – Irving Gross was my grandfather. You can read through all the talk on this page and see that even the original authors agree that there is no history of him ever being names Alfred or having a middle initial J. I can provided everything from birth certificates to the paperwork when he changed his name from his birth name of Isidore to Irving. The most important proof is mentioned in the texts page is that his exhibit at Virgina Tech is under the name Irving Al Gross and it is also full of paperwork and family photos that I provided Artluverr (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alva NotoCarsten Nicolai – the article "Alva Noto" is about the artist Carsten Nicolai, who is unsing Alva Noto just as a pseudonym for his musical work. Kaethe17 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Relisted. 2pou (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Knowledge GraphGoogle Knowledge Graph – This article is only about Google's implementation of knowledge graphs. It is also Google house style to give products names that are common nouns (like "Inbox"), and they are generally referred to in formal literature by the full name ("Google Inbox"). It is also WP style to use that full name as the article title. We have a lower-cased article on the concept of a knowledge graph, and there is no need for the confusion of two articles with different cases. – SJ + 03:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Palden SherabKhenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche – The full name, and the name used on publications, by said author, teacher, and scholar is Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche. Palden Sherab is an unknown version of his name. (For equipment reasons, the move is being requested.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of successful English Channel swimmersList of notable English Channel swimmers – This title would clarify that this is not a complete list of successful English Channel swimmers. Yes, swimming the channel is an amazing feat by most people's standards, but it isn't enough for a place in this article (there are other places for such lists). Good-faith editors often add "common or garden" successful swims to this list, and have to be reverted. The current list title is misleading as it suggests an inclusive list. There may well be a better title than the one I suggest - and I suggest that the list itself should include a clearer criterion of what goes into the "First swims" table, to clarify that it's not any random swimmer's first swim, but a "first" in some wider category. PamD 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


TamilMirchi (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Relisted. 2pou (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lookin' Out My Back DoorLookin' out My Back Door – Per MOS:TITLECAPS, 'out' is a preposition ("Where am I lookin'? Out my back door"). The 2011 move request by MacMog mainly refers to some incomparable examples with a capitalized 'out'; in Cleanin' Out My Closet it's a particle in a phrasal verb ("What am I cleaning out? My closet"; and in contrast to prepositions in phrasal verbs, particles can be preceded by the object: "cleaning it out") and in The Colour Out of Space it's part of a compound preposition. (The third example, Up Out My Face, might also be mis-capitalized.) The most sensical point in that discussion was made by LtPowers, 'out' being a shortening of the compound preposition 'out of'. But i.m.o. that doesn't make 'out' not a preposition. See also the definition by Oxford Dictionary: "preposition; through to the outside", and the remark under 'Usage': "The use of out as a preposition (rather than the standard prepositional phrase out of), as in he threw it out the window, [..]". With kind regards — Mar(c).[talk] 22:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bojana (river)Buna (river) – Buna is the more common name in bibliography. Results from mention of the two names on google scholar: - Buna: 22,500 (- 672, the maximum number of results which might refer to Buna, Neretva) : 21,828 - Bojana: 5,300 N.Hoxha (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of prominent operasList of notable operas – Per the following:

    The move review has been closed as no consensus and a suggestion that "Someone please propose a better name and let's have a restart" I would like to suggest List of notable operas. This is a recently edited redirect that currently directs to Lists of operas ie, it's kind of going spare as that's not a great redirect. The challenge in naming this page is how to describe it in accordance with its inclusion criteria. It seems to me that being mentioned in a certain number of specific reliable sources is almost definitionally, a sign of notability. It also does not try to second-guess the inclusion criteria for these sources with words like "prominent" or "important". What do you think?OsFish

    ...Which I support. Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:No substitution → ? – These two opposite templates display a banner in template documentation to advise if the template should always or never be substituted. Until recently, they were named "nosubst" and "subst only". Recently, they were renamed "no substiution" and "substitute only", respectively. Then the latter only was reverted. The purpose of this discussion is to resolve the current inconsistency. There has been a recent trend to use natural spacing, thus "no subst*" over "nosubst*". The further question is whether to use the abbreviation "subst" or the full word. Bsherr (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Jerm (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests


See also