Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

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

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

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

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

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

When not to use this page[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

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

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist| 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 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.
  • 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. 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]

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:

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

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, because this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move[edit]

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 29 July 2016" and sign for you.

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

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article Alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

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

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

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

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

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructions[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

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

July 29, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Civil ServicesCivil Services of India – A couple of months ago, this article was moved by User:Filpro from this name which it has had for 6 years, without discussion but with the logic that there is no other article with this name. There is of course Civil service with which this name is easily confused because it is the plural of that phrase. I don't see why Civil Services should not be a redirect to "Civil service", especially when Civil services (which the mover also changed to make a point) and Civil Service also point there. To argue that this is the common name is to ignore the fact that there are numerous other civil services in other countries that could also claim to be commonly know as just "Civil Service" by the local population. Filpro has not explained why the Indian Civil Services are so special that they need such a generic title. Are they referred to by this name by anybody outside India? If anything Filpro should have made a move request when the article was moved back to its original name by another user last month. (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC))
  • (Discuss)Axis powersAxis Power – I have no particular rationale for Axis Power, I just prefer it. That being said, just pick one between the two options, please. The capitalization in this article is confusing. Fumiko Take (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

July 28, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ed Gallagher (American football) → ? – Both of these players had a WP:COMMONNAME of "Ed Gallagher," both played American football, and both were Tackles. I can see three different ways to disambiguate these guys, so I'd like more input as to which one is "best." 1. Using year of birth to distinguish (which I dislike since no one would know their birthyear, but it's probably the cleanest). 2. One of the Ed Gallaghers seems to be more notable for his off the field work, so we could use author/motivational speaker/activist as his disambiguator and hatnote to the other one, who would use "American football" since he is soley known as a football player. 3. One of them was both an offensive tackle and defensive tackle, while the other one was solely an offensive tackle. We could use that difference to distinguish (eg: offensive lineman or offensive tackle vs. tackle). Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mr. and Mrs. TurnerTimmy Turner's parents – A page about these two characters is an R with possibility whose history should remain intact in case Fairly OddParents is later considered to be popular enough for characters to have articles as many other series have had. I don't think the history should remain at this location though because "Mr. and Mrs." could refer to other people. It should instead redirect to Turner (surname) in case people are looking for another husband or wife with the last name Turner. Ranze (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Philippine Drug WarRodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs – I know the article is longer, but the phrase "Philippine Drug War" (all words capitalized suggesting its a proper name of the campaign) is neologism. Unlike the "Mexican Drug War" this phrase has yet to be used extensively by academic sources. However I do acknowledge, that the creator of the article may have modeled the campaigns name to that of Mexico under good faith. Also it also implies that there was no crackdown on illegal drugs in the Philippines before. Given the scope of the article I suggest renaming the article to "Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs". Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Walter Bishop (Fringe)Walter Bishop – Walter Bishop, the fictional character from the television show Fringe, is the primary topic for the name Walter Bishop, getting the most views in the last 90 days (I can't add the link, for some reason it removes all of this text. Check it out for yourselve, please :o). The other two Walter Bishops, Walter Bishop Jr. and Walter Bishop Sr. are not primary topic, getting much less views than the fictional character. Besides, the other two Walter Bishop's do not go simply by "Walter Bishop", instead, they go by their name + a suffix at the end, while the fictional character does not have a suffix. Therefore, Walter Bishop the fictional character should be at "Walter Bishop" and a hatnote can solve any confusion. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 20:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mark Maclaine (director)Mark Maclaine – Move to facilitate the removal of disambiguation, due to other use of name not being a real human: see clear guidelines on the wiki page: Human name disambiguation pages. A link should and will however be placed at the top of this page asking if the user wants to be directed to the fictional character's page. This should remove confusion as this person fulfills multiple roles (as is clear in the article and through references). Jameslenton (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 27, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)FC Alania Vladikavkaz → ? – For the 2016-17 season, there will be no team with the name 'FC Alania Vladikavkaz' in the Russian Professional Football League, the formally new team was organized and licensed under the name FC Spartak Vladikavkaz: This is a bit of formality and technicality as it still will be owned by the local provincial government and the only reason there is no word "Alania" in the name is that the owners do not want to pay accumulated debts and they don't want the new club to be responsible for said debt. The new club will most likely be claiming the history of FC Alania Vladikavkaz, if not pay their debts. FC Alania Vladikavkaz was known in the past as FC Spartak Vladikavkaz and the redirect from FC Spartak Vladikavkaz to FC Alania Vladikavkaz currently exists. To complicate things, another Vladikavkaz team was called FC Spartak Vladikavkaz for one year only, see FC Spartak Vladikavkaz (2008). So I am not sure how best to proceed - create a completely new page for the formally "new" club organized in 2016 that will replace the current redirect for FC Spartak Vladikavkaz? Then every page that links to the "FC Spartak Vladikavkaz" redirect would have to be edited to point to FC Alania Vladikavkaz instead - you don't want a person clicking on the team name in some 1990s player's biography and getting to the 2016 club team's page. Call the new team's page FC Spartak Vladikavkaz (2016)? Not very convenient either. Any thoughts? Geregen2 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting for needed feedback — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)XiaolongnüLittle Dragon Maiden – "Xiaolongnü" isn't a real personal name, it just means "Little Dragon Maiden". References are in Chinese, so there are 2 ways to translate this nickname to English: "Xiaolongnü" (phonetic transliteration) which doesn't mean anything to anybody and requires the unusual symbol "ü"; and "Little Dragon Maiden" (literal) which is meaningful and established by the 1983 film. At least I think the second move is necessary as the 1983 film is named after (and about) the character. Timmyshin (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cao ĐàiCaodaism – Cao Đài ("Highest Power") is the name of God in this religion. The religion itself is more appropriately named, given conceptual distinction, "Caodaism", a term which is consistently used in academic literature about the subject.  – Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

July 26, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Foreign SecretaryForeign secretary – This article was previously at Foreign secretary but was moved to this title as an uncontroversial request. I would argue that it is far from controversial, that by far the commonest meaning for Foreign Secretary (capitalised) is the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (for which it is still the commonly used shorthand, to the extent that most people would probably not know what the full title was), and that the capitalised version should therefore be returned to redirecting there as it did before. The other three Foreign Secretaries on this list are senior civil servants and all relatively recently created positions; the British Foreign Secretary, on the other hand, is one of the most senior government ministers of one of the most significant states in world history and is a title that has existed since 1782; every holder has been a significant figure on the world stage. An alternative would be to move this article to Foreign Secretary (disambiguation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)StreetRunnerStreetrunner – As noted above, the article subject spells his name in all capital letters, not in camel case. While that is not an acceptable style for an article title, the title should reflect it as nearly as possible - as a decapitalized name rather than as one with a single capital letter inserted without any source to support that styling. (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Climate change and national securityClimate security – The title of this article is needlessly wordy and "climate security" is a commonly used phrase that describes the topic discussed on this page. Currently there is a page for "Climate security" that redirects back to "Climate change and national security" and another page for "Climate Security" (both words capitalized) that does the same thing. For simplicity the one page should be "Climate security" with "Climate Security" redirected (or deleted) and "Climate change and national security" redirected to "climate security". Thank you. – Locutus42 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza StripPalestinian tunnel warfare – [1] This warfare isn't only in the Gaza Strip as several of the tunnels extended deep into Israel. This is extensively mentioned in the article, no problem there, only the title doesn't follow suit. [2] There are no other articles on Palestinian tunnel warfare. Hence adding a restricting geography, especially when its borders are crossed anyway, makes the title fail WP:CONCISE. gidonb (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Omni Flames (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John de BritoJohn de Britto – In the English language, "John de Britto" is usually spelled with two t's. In Google Books, "John de Britto" gets 3440 hits whereas "John de Brito" gets 1010 hits. See the article's talk page for further arguments. Mksword (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

July 25, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ligado NetworksLigado Networks – LightSquared rebranded itself in 2016 and the company is now known as Ligado Networks. Looking at this from a WP:COMMONNAME perspective, Ligado Networks is the name used in media coverage since the company rebranded. The name change was reported on in The Wall Street Journal, FierceWireless and Wireless Week, among others. As the company is no longer known as LightSquared (recent coverage uses Ligado Networks in the first instance), I suggest moving this article from its former name to Ligado Networks, while keeping LightSquared as a redirect to Ligado Networks. I have a financial conflict of interest since I work with Beutler Ink on behalf of Ligado Networks via The Glover Park Group; as I abide by the "bright line", I won't edit live articles. I'd be grateful if someone could review this and move LightSquared to Ligado Networks if you agree that it's appropriate. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cooler (alcoholic beverage)Premixed drink – There has been long-running discussion on the Talk page about what the name of this article should be. Last month someone moved it from "Alcopop" to "Cooler (alcoholic beverage)", asserting that there was a consensus to avoid "alcopop" – but there was no formal RM involved, and the result has not really been satisfactory. There have been simmering objections to "Alcopop" as pejorative and not universal. However, the "cooler" term seems to be U.S.-centric and not necessarily applicable to all of these products even within the U.S. Let's have a proper discussion and settle it. To me, "premixed drink" (which was suggested a couple of days ago) seems straightforward and reasonably descriptive for this (somewhat vague) category of alcoholic beverages. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Munich massacre1972 Munich massacre – I'm proposing this rename in agreement with Rudolph Davis and others before. The rename however isn't only to disambiguate the 1972 massacre from the 2016 Munich shooting. In the long run, the even more relevant massacre requiring disambiguation might be the 1980 Oktoberfest terror attack which is regularly referred to as the "Oktoberfest massacre". The 1972 Munich massacre is closely affiliated with 1972, particularly for the high saliency of the "1972 Olympic Games" in Munich, in which context the massacre was perpetrated. -- PanchoS (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)PrignitzPrignitz (district) – "Prignitz" is the name of a historical region of Brandenburg that today forms part of the Prignitz and Ostprignitz-Ruppin districts. Even though we currently don't have an article on the eponymous historical region, it is an inadequate title for this administrative district which is anyway usually referred to as "Landkreis Prignitz" in German and as "Prignitz district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)OsterholzOsterholz (district) – "Osterholz" is the name of a monastery that was an independent community until merged in 1927 to Osterholz-Scharmbeck. It therefore is an inadequate title for the eponymous administrative district that is anyway usually referred to as "Landkreis Osterholz" in German and as "District of Osterholz", or "Osterholz district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NordfrieslandNordfriesland (district) – "Nordfriesland" is the original, German name of North Frisia. It therefore is an inadequate title for the eponymous administrative district that is anyway usually referred to as "Kreis Nordfriesland" in German and as "Nordfriesland District", "Northern Friesland District" or "North Frisia District" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)EmslandEmsland (district) – The geographical and historical region Emsland, though currently covered only by a mere stub in the English Wikipedia, clearly constitutes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, particularly as the eponymous administrative district is usually referred to as "Landkreis Emsland" in German and as "District of Emsland" or "Emsland district" in English. The request may be closed pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DithmarschenDithmarschen (district) – Even though we currently don't have an article on the eponymous geographical and historical region, this is merely an administrative district that is usually referred to as "Landkreis Dithmarschen" in German and as "District of Dithmarschen" or "Dithmarschen district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AhrweilerAhrweiler (district) – "Ahrweiler" is the name of a former German city that was only merged to Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler in 1969. It is therefore an inadequate title for the eponymous administrative district that is anyway usually referred to as "Landkreis Ahrweiler" in German and as "District of Ahrweiler" or "Ahrweiler district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AmmerlandAmmerland (district) – Even though we currently don't have an article on the eponymous geographical region, this is merely an administrative district that is usually referred to as "Landkreis Ammerland" in German and as "District of Ammerland" or "Ammerland district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)No Woman (film)No Woman – Move to correct title - no need for disambiguation. Previously requested here as move from "No woman" but moved to wrong title. – PamD 07:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

July 24, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Mercy Career and Technical High SchoolMercy Career & Technical High School – There's been a big debate above over whether the article should be named "Mercy Career and Technical" or "Mercy Career & Technical High School", As someone above disagrees with the article title I'm firing up a new RM (Yes this is disruptive on all forms however I did technically close both early so instead of arguing to death over it I figured I'd fire it up and this time leave it for the full 7 days, I personally believe the article is fine and that we shouldn't use ampersand however I'll let the community decide, I would ask that everyone keeps their !vote short and sweet and to save all the "moans" for another day, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)YennyPark Ye-eun – Some background on this: Park Ye-eun is a member of the South Korean girl group Wonder Girls. The group was somewhat active in the US from 2009 to 2012, and then went on a three-year hiatus. They made a comeback in South Korea in 2015 and are currently active there. Yenny was Park's stage name in the US, and was never used in SK as far as I know. I do not think Yenny is the most commonly used name in English-language sources, based on search results. She is most commonly referred to as Yeeun/Ye-eun/Ye Eun, and Wonder Girls' recent album covers (Reboot and Why So Lonely) say "Ye Eun". There are at least three other girl group members who go by this name, so the surname works as natural disambiguation (sources: [16], [17], [18]). There is also the question of whether Yeeun/Ye-eun/Ye Eun should redirect to here, or Ye-eun (name); this depends on which is the primary topic. Random86 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Exam (film)Exam (2009 film) – I am reopening this following the confused move request above. Note that I oppose the move, so should not count as a nominator.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Audience NetworkAudience (TV network) – I feel like this move will be controversial, but I have noticed that back in March the logo has changed and the word "Network" has been removed from it; I uploaded a new logo to display the change. Billboard Man (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

July 23, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)Mooloolaba, QueenslandMooloolaba – There is no other Mooloolaba, so to have the article at Mooloolaba, Queensland, is not necessary. The original move rationale was for consistency of naming, and I assume that means with other locations in Queensland, but that is not a valid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cottage CountryCottage Country (film) – This morning's removal of disambiguator was not uncontroversial. DIFFCAPS does not say it's a good idea to make titles less precise and less recognizable. An RM should be made for a controversial move. – Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MTV TresTres (TV network) – I think this title would make more sense for a move, rather than the previous request. Plus, it specifically says in the article that Tres "dropped MTV from its name", so why is the article called "MTV Tres"? Billboard Man (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Alor jewelry → ? – The page title looks wrong. If "jewelry" is a part of the name of the company, then it should be written as "Jewelry". If it is a disambiguator, then it should be "(jewelry)". Also, the article uses caps (ALOR) whereas the title uses "Alor". Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC))
  • (Discuss)Xǔ (surname) – There's no reason as to why there is the (surname) to clarify the page. For 徐, the page does not have it. Opacitatic (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

July 22, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss)List of lighthouses in the United States by heightList of tallest lighthouses in the United States – It has been suggested at least twice above, in previous years, that the two lists be cut off at some minimum heights. It is very non-interesting to list many 15-foot towers tied with one another, and development/maintenance of the lower height ones is not worthwhile. Both types of heights of all of these should be covered in List of lighthouses in the United States and its split-out separate state lists. So rename this to make this cover just the tallest ones. I suggest cutting off the tower heights at 100 feet and the focal plane heights at 150 feet, so that the lists are manageable, and seek comments from others on what they think are suitable cutoffs, but the cutoffs are a separate editing question from this move/rename decision. It would then be nice to see coordinates added to the article and a GeoGroup template, so that a reader could see where the tallest ones are located (will there be any pattern?). doncram 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss)British Empire in World War II → ? – The new name could be: *British Commonwealth in World War II, or *British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II or something else, or of course keeping the current name of just "British Empire in World War II", and let the closer decide which has the best argument and most support.

    The arguments over changing or keeping are discussed exhaustively (and somewhat acerbically) above: Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth, usefully summarized here IMO: Talk:British Empire in World War II#Summary, where we see a strong majority favoring just "British Empire" (and the closer should peruse this section and count those voices, if they don't re-appear hear), but this was not formatted as a Requested Move so there was no final decision, so as promised I present this as such.

    Just to point out, the question is for X in "X in World War II" where "X" is the name of political entity; the question of adding "Military history of..." or anything else of that nature has just been decided and is off the table. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of British Columbia Provincial ParksList of protected areas of British Columbia – I have tried to boldly move this myself, but List of protected areas of British Columbia used to be a redirect to List of municipal and regional parks in British Columbia. This required a technical speedy delete, but in the two times I have attempted to do this, the admins do the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do. So I am doing an RM here to try and explain my case out in detail to prevent confusion, and get community consensus. All other Canadian provincial and territorial lists of provincial parks are formatted with the same title: "List of protected areas of [province/territory]". I am expanding these lists to include other "protected areas" that are not "provincial parks", but are designated and maintain with similar protections, by similar agencies, as part of the broader provincial/territorial system. I have proposed deleting the redirect so that this article, "List of British Columbia Provincial Parks" could be moved to "List of protected areas of British Columbia" and therefore become consistent with other provincial and territorial lists. I have also ruled out merging the two due to the sheer size of content. --Natural RX 13:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss)Link Light RailLink light rail – Sound Transit has updated its branding guidelines and no longer uses the terms we have used for Wikipedia articles. Light rail is not part of the Link name, with most news articles nowadays referring to the system as "Link light rail" or simply "Link". Additionally, "Central Link" refers to the project that built the initial 14-mile segment from downtown to the airport, and now that the line is extended to the University of Washington, Sound Transit has dropped the use of "Central" in its signage and online materials (e.g. schedules [referring to it as just "Link"). The May 2016 maps show that Sound Transit is already phasing in its "Red Line" branding despite the "Blue Line" (East Link) not opening until 2023. I'm all for alternative titles ("Red Line (Link light rail)", "Red Line (Sound Transit)", "Red Line (Seattle)"), but this change is long overdue. SounderBruce 03:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cell TherapyCell Therapy (music single) – There is another page called "Cell therapy" with uncapitalised t that refers to a medical approach. It can be confusing when editing or searching these two pages within wiki to distinguish one and the other. I believe it would make sense to specify that this page refers to a music single, it would make comprehension easier. Bcarbone (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


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

See also[edit]