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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page[edit]

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

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

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

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

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]


Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, 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 propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 15 January 2016". Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. The template must be substituted.

Use the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion.

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations need not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should.

RMCD bot notifies any Wikiproject listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.}}

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".
  • 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, and more closers of move requests are needed, but there are certain procedures that need to be followed. Please read our closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.

Relisting[edit]

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate for a subsequent times, 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 WP: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.

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.

January 15, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Peruvian Viceroyal architecture → Viceregal architecture of Peru – I am unsure as to what the best title for this article would be, which is why I am opening a RM to get more input and find a consensus. I propose the new title based on it being a direct translation of the preferred Spanish name; it is also used in English publication. The main justification for the title is the idea that "Viceregal architecture" in Peru embodies more than just Spanish colonial architecture, as it adapted to local realities and apparently also adopted Andean elements (see Andean Baroque). However, I also consider that an appropriate title would be Spanish Colonial architecture in Peru—in fact, there is even an article on Spanish Colonial architecture. The problem with this other possible title is that it takes away the uniqueness of the architectural style in Peru. I think that there are many pros and cons to both options, but would like to get a sense of consensus on one title or the other. Thanks! MarshalN20 Talk 06:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 14, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Sơn Đoòng Cave → Sơn Đoòng cave – The "cave" part is not part of the proper name of the place. Writing "Sơn Đoòng Cave" is like writing "Biên Hòa City". While just Sơn Đoòng by itself would look like a viable name per WP:CONCISE, it's ambiguous because it refers to the mountain, not just the cave in it. The redundant "Hang Sơn Đoòng cave" will not work; it's like writing "Rio Grande river" or "Mount Fujiyama". The proper name is Hang Sơn Đoòng, which is looking like the common and non-ambiguous name in English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Freeform Worldwide Inc. → ABC Family Worldwide Inc. – This page has been moved from ABC Family Worldwide Inc. to Freeform Worldwide Inc. when the TV channel ABC Family was rebranded as Freeform. However, there are no sources given that also the company that operates the TV channel was renamed, and the California Secretary of State Business search confirms this. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – State Pension → UK State Pension – The current name for this page 'State Pension' does not identify to which country's pension it refers. It should be named 'UK State Pension' to clearly identify that it only refers to the State Pension scheme in the UK. This page was previously named as 'UK State Pension', but an edit dated 05:11 17 December 2015 moved the page from 'UK State Pension' to the current name 'State Pension'. For clarity, that move should be reverted to the clearer 'UK State Pension'. Boy.bowen (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 13, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Ziyue (band) → ? – Totally unrelated to the move above, but to the name of the page itself. As the article is likely to never grow more than the present, and if it is to be kept, the current sources name the band through multiple names: "Ziyue", "Zi Yue", "Yaoshi Ziyue", "Yaoshi-Ziyue", "You.Me.It.". If this was a numeric contest, the name "Zi Yue" is the most constant. Even the page is written using "Zi Yue": "Zi Yue (子曰乐队)" and "The name Zi yue...". Clearly the current name is not the most common, or even the most appropiate. Because of this I propose to move it to either: *Ziyue (band) (current) *Zi Yue (band) *Yaoshi Ziyue *Yaoshi-Ziyue *You.Me.It. (or You Me It) As the RM requester, I propose to move it, if anywere, to Zi Yue (band) because it is the most constant. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

January 12, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – The Proud and the Damned → The Proud and Damned – Opening a discussion about this after disagreement at the help desk- I initially moved the page, before requesting it moved back as it's not clear which title is correct. My stance is neutral on this, as it's not my area of expertise, but I believe a move discussion would be beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mmmh → Mmmm (disambiguation) – This is the disambiguation page for an heterogeneous collection of articles with various combinations of M's, H's and punctuation in their titles. I think that Mmmm is a more generic search term, and would recommend that we use this as the dab page name. Until today, Mmmm redirected to General Francisco J. Mujica International Airport, but I don't think this is the obvious primary topic (4000 (number) and the Crash Test Dummies single are equally reasonable contenders), so I've changed the redirect to the current "generic mmm..." dab page; this discussion is to determine if that page should be retitled. Tevildo (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Drew Hankinson → Doc Gallows – Hankinson used many names in the past (festus, luke gallows, doc and Doc Gallows). However, I think Doc Gallows became the common name. He spent three years as Doc Gallows in NJPW, the second largest promotion in the world. He wrestled in 3 Wrestle Kingdom events (the japanese Wrestlemania). He is in The Bullet Club, won the IWGP Tag Team Titles 3 times (one reign is one-year long) and the World Tag League. He gained more exposure and succes in NJPW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 'Hours...' → Hours... – Restore previous move consensus from 12 September 2008. While single quotation marks are used for the album title on some artwork, they are not regarded as part of the album title name by the majority of the external references currently used (second most commonly used name was simply Hours, without any punctuation). Also, this article name should be similar to the related The Hours... Tour article. +mt 06:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dan Stemkoski → ? – WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NICKNAME Dan Stemkowski appears to be more commonly referred to as Artosis. There are 283,000 google hits for "Artosis" and only 22,100 for "Dan Stemkowski", however it should be noted that google search results may not be entirely accurately. Prisencolin (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

January 11, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – 2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests → 2012 Sydney Islamic Riots – This is the original article name. It was renamed for no good reason. The event would not have achieved such a media notability if it was merely a "protest", and protests do not leave six police officers injured. Trying to storm an American embassy is also much closer to a "riot". The current title does not accurately describe the contents of the page. 129.88.43.73 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jerusalem Day → Yom Yerushalayim – As per the entire talk page above. I believe the admin above acted incorrectly when he closed the above move request with a move to Jerusalem Day. Jerusalem Day is not used at all. YY is the most common usage in the English speaking world, similar to Yom Kippur and all the Eid holiday in the Muslim calendar. I reiterate all the arguments above, Wikipedia is supposed to use common usage, and consensus, and firstly, the above RPM had ample consensus to keep the page at Yom Yerushalayim, the admin even admitted as such, he decided to use AFD logic and move regardless. Other users argues that since YY is sometimes translated as Jerusalem Day then it should be moved to that, but it is common usage that is key and in common usage Yom Yerushalayim is the one that is most often used. Some of the users above mentioned that because some of the sources were Jewish they were not RS, I shouldn't even have to comment about that. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Hush! (film) → Hush! (2001 film) – It took me a long time to find the article by not indicating the year. It seems that in history as the year contained but was removed by the symbol '!' Given that search engines do not attach importance to the symbol, you should re-enter the year for disambiguation. Rubenleobcn (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Masih ad-Dajjal → Imposter Messiah – The current title "al-Masih ad-Dajjal" is no more than a transliteration of the Arabic title "المسيح الدجال". Since the English Wikipedia is supposed to have the titles of its articles in the English language instead of having them transliterated from other languages, I think it will be better to rename it. Religions Explorer (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Foothill, Salt Lake City → East Bench, Salt Lake City – "East Bench" has been merged with "Foothill," but Foothill is the northern part of the East Bench. Foothill is a subset of East Bench. The entire area is known as the East Bench. The article should be titled "East Bench." Please move this article to East Bench so it will be correct. Jack Autosafe (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 10, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Barsetshire Pilgrimage → Barchester Pilgrimage – Simple error in book title to be corrected. The book title is really Barchester Pilgrimage (check any online reference such as abebooks.com or worldcat.org), not Barsetshire Pilgrimage. The confusion is that Barchester refers to the town in which most action takes place, but Barsetshire refers to the larger county which includes the town. This article would be autolinked (if the title is corrected) from the article on the author Ronald Knox. 97.88.205.98 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardy → Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie – By technical request, this article was moved to Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardy last December. I think "Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardy" is an awkward half-translation of the French "Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie". I don't think there is much English usage yet, since the region was recently created. This is a temporary name for the region anyway, the definitive name will be determined officially in October 2016. Markussep Talk 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Myx → MYX – I notice from their page (like FB, Twitter and Instagram) that they use "MYX" instead of "myx" despite their logo is in all lowercase. Does this move must follow the MOS:TM rule on it? You judge on this. Please exclude Myx TV on the discussion since their Twitter & Instagram page uses "Myx TV" rather than "MYX TV". j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 15:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kingston student ghetto → University District, Kingston – The area was officially renamed to the “University District” by the City of Kingston, and is used to refer to the area whenever it’s referenced publicly. While it is important to recognize that the area is still colloquially referred to as the “Student Ghetto” by some, it isn’t the correct name for the area, nor this page. The title format follows other “University District” pages. YourmuniciPAL (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Hiberno-English → Irish English – I'm deliberately now following controversial (rather than uncontroversial) procedure; I'm not sure if the last request's being "suspiciously placed" was my own fault or the moving admin's. I apologize if it was mine; in any case, we can now have a fuller discussion. Here was my original and still basic argument: "Irish English" is undeniably a more widely recognized and recognizable title. The linguistic giant regarding this topic, Irish scholar Raymond Hickey, states in the Introduction to his Irish English: History and Present-Day Forms that the term "Hiberno-English suffers from two drawbacks": namely, it is both too technical for laypersons (an appropriate argument too for a Wikipedia article) and carries with it certain "un-academic" or sentimental implications (p. 5). If anyone is interested in checking out his thoughts in full, I'm happy to send a copy of the complete work, which I own. Wolfdog (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 9, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Yue opera (Zhejiang) → Shaoxing opera – Exact same thing, WP:NATURAL, also see argument provided above by User:Hoffnung2008. In fact, "Shaoxing opera" (unambiguous) has been more prevalent in English-language books than "Yue opera" (ambiguous), see Google Ngram. Another problem with the current title is that in modern times this opera's popularity is not just limited to Zhejiang but throughout Chinese-speaking world, and even in history it probably enjoyed more success in Shanghai than Zhejiang. Also, both the French and Russian pages use the equivalents of "Shaoxing opera". Timmyshin (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

January 8, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Syriac (disambiguation) → Syriac – The Syriacs as a Middle Eastern people, with an associated Church, language and culture as a whole. The current disambiguation setup doesn't reflect that. Syriac is a redirect from 2002 pointing to the language. That redirect is currently being used on 300+ pages, but many of them are thus mistakenly linking to the language, and should be redirected to the people or their Church. I therefore propose to make the disambiguation page the landing page, as with other adjectives in the same geo-cultural space (Assyrian, Chaldean, ...). Midas02 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Men's Health (magazine) → Men's Health – It's a a dab with only two pages. Move this page to that name and use a hatnote like {{For|health issues that apply specifically to men|men's health}} or somesuch. No need for a disambiguation of two. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Liquidator (Chernobyl) → Chernobyl liquidators – In English, liquidators are people who dispose of assets in multiple contexts; this meaning is quite different. English readers are more likely to be looking for this topic under Chernobyl than "liquidators" but keep this one as a redirect. Per the article, the formal title was "participant in liquidation of the Chernobyl NPP accident consequences" so we're not literally translating anyway. (This came up in a discussion with Johnbod of the category name, Category:Chernobyl liquidators. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – List of lists of lists → Wikipedia:List of lists of lists – Inappropriate for mainspace, as it has no educational value and is not backed up by any reliable source, as the notability guidelines for lists say that for an item to be on a list, a reliable source must consider the item on the list to be an instance of what the page lists (the guideline currently being broken is Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Citing sources). The page is used only for navigation of Wikipedia, making it perfect for the "Wikipedia" namespace but inappropriate for the mainspace. Even if the article was backed up by reliable sources, the page would have to be called "List of lists of lists on Wikipedia" as "List of lists of lists" could refer to many things (Policy currently being broken is Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision). In the "Wikipedia" namespace, we don't have to worry about that. Proud User (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
  • (Discuss) – Kelly Morgan → Kelly Aston – This is a natural disambiguation between two sports people both known as Kelly Morgan. I think COMMONNAME is borderline regarding the badminton player; recent sources are referring to her as Aston,[1] as does her employer[2] and her own LinkedIn page,[3] but most sources are about her badminton career and pre-date the name change, so I think the balance there comes down to how much extra weight the more recent sources get. However, given COMMONNAME and NCDAB, I think balance tips in favour of the move. But I'm not sure, hence proposing the move rather than just going ahead and making it. COI note: the boxer and javelin throwing Kelly Morgan is a family friend, although I haven't talked to her or indeed anyone else about the edits I've been making to her Wikipedia article. Possibly relevant to the discussion: Aston didn't immediately take her husband's name on marriage – they married in 2002 but there are newspaper reports from after the marriage still referring to her as Morgan.[4]

References

  1. ^ Matthew, Monl (14 October 2014). "Commonwealth gold medallist Kelly in Dubai". Khaleej Times. Retrieved 31 December 2015. 
  2. ^ "Meet our Faculty". GEMS Wellington Academy-Al Kahail. Retrieved 31 December 2015. 
  3. ^ "Kelly Aston MBE". LinkedIn. Retrieved 31 December 2015. 
  4. ^ Harris, Nick (28 July 2002). "Badminton: Morgan the Racket seeks action replay of greatest moment". The Independent. Retrieved 31 December 2015. 
—me_and 14:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – John Randolph (politician) → Sir John Randolph – This is a bit tough. We don't typically use honorifics in titles unless the person is ubiquitously known with them or if there aren't better options for disambiguation. This seems to be the latter. (politician) is insufficient disambiguation from a few of the other entries at John Randolph. (Virginia) and (colonial politician) would have the same problems. Since part of this John Randolph's claim to notability is being the only colonial American to receive a knighthood, I think this is a good case for returning to the honorific as natural disambiguation. If not, the more opaque John Randolph (politician, born 1693) is probably the best bet. Pinging JackofOz, who moved to the present title back in April. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Microsoft Accessories → Microsoft Hardware – I dispute the changes of the article about the Microsoft Hardware Group into being about a "Microsoft Accessories" division (which I do not believe ever existed), as well as the subsequent changes into a straight redirect to a List of Microsoft hardware page that lacks any information about the Microsoft Hardware Group. Dancter (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia → Mogadishu under Italian rule – Per WP:DAB and to resolve general confusion. The article has been moved several times in the last month to various titles without any proper consensus agreement. The current title, "Mogadishu, Banadir, Somalia", and the original title "Mogadishu, Somalia", both seem too ambiguous with the main article at Mogadishu (which also describes a city in the Banadir region in Somalia – in fact, I think it is the same city but just during a different period of history, although the article seems to say the city "officially ... disappeared"). A previous very recent discussion was opened as an RM but was changed into an article merging discussion that proceeded in a rather confusing way and concluded that a merging was not appropriate. An IP editor has objected to the most recent move and has twice performed a WP:Cut and paste move back to Italian Mogadishu. Personally, I would not necessarily object to the use of that name or various others, but please let's have a proper discussion and pick a name that has consensus support. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pennsylvania Station (New York City) → Penn Station – While Pennsylvania Station might be its historic name, the station is much better known in reliable sources as "Penn Station", making that form its common name (i.e., the few sources that call it "Pennsylvania Station" are historic, but historic sources still predominantly call it Penn Station).[9][10][11][12][13] I'd also contend that this station is the primary topic for "Penn Station" (rather than the redirect to Pennsylvania Station) as searches for "Penn Station" stack the New York station results far above any other Penn or Pennsylvania Stations. (The traffic to the NYC station is an order of magnitude higher than the others as well.) Alternatively, it is sometimes disambiguated as "New York Penn Station", though I believe the proposal as proposed to be the most fitting solution. czar 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Edward Henry Clive → Edward Clive (British Army officer, born 1837) – Clive was known as Edward Clive - he is referred to as this in several contemporary articles in The Times. Per WP:MIDDLES we should not use middle names as disambiguators if they were not actually used in practice; despite the claim above, per our guidelines name is not in this case a better disambiguation than occupation and to use it as such would be going against all our usual practices. The previous RM 'discussion' was closed with zero contributions (probably not altogether unsurprising given it was over Christmas). As Edward Clive, 1st Earl of Powis was also an army officer (although only really in the militia) we should go with the usual way to distinguish between disambiguated names and use year of birth. However, I would also be happy to revert to Edward Clive (British Army officer), given this Clive was a career regular army general and the Earl of Powis was only a militia colonel and not principally known for being a soldier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Smile Pretty Cure! → Glitter Force – The anime show Smile PreCure! is being marketed under the name Glitter Force in the English and multiple-language localizations that were produced by Saban and distributed by Netflix worldwide. Per MOS:ANIME, "Use the most commonly known English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If that name includes special characters (such as ♥), do not include them in the article's title. If it is translated, this is usually the official English translation. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles. See also: WP:NAME: TV | Books | Films." Since the worldwide character names are all based on the English adaptation, and this is for English Wikipedia, it would be suitable to orient the article and its title to the English version as done on many anime shows before. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
The current Wikipedia time is:
18:08, Friday, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=699825015"