Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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 move 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 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 may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely 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[edit]

Technical requests[edit]

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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over 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 27 April 2018" 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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over 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.

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 27 April 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018 (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 27 April 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018 (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 27 April 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section 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 27 April 2018

– why Example (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018 (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 27 April 2018

– why Example (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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


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 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 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 and in table format. 10 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

April 27, 2018[edit]

April 26, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Womanizer (song)Womanizer – There is no other article called "Womanizer" as seen in the DAB page. But should this move request end against my favour, the term "womanizer" should redirect to "Promiscuity". This is because the DAB page has only two links: this song and the article Promiscuity. The DAB page shouldn't even exist per WP:TWODABS. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Investec Derby TrialBlue Riband Trial Stakes – This race has now reverted to its original name, having been called the Investec Derby Trial for some years. The article previously existed at the original name, which became a redirect when it was moved. Article needs to be moved back to the original and now current name Bcp67 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

April 25, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)NewtonNewton (disambiguation)Isaac Newton is according to the article "one of the most influential scientists of all time". It is a clear case of WP:PTOPIC if there ever was one. Accordingly, Newton should redirect to Isaac Newton, and a new disambiguation should be created. Vpab15 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Involuntary celibacyIncel – This is a specific ideology held by a tiny fringe minority of men, and not the same thing as "involuntary celibacy" defined as wanting sex or love but not being able to get it. Most men who can't get a girlfriend don't subscribe to this ideology, or anything remotely similar; we should not paint them as such. "Incel" should then redirect here, as it is used exclusively in relation to this ideology. We can have "Incel (disambiguation)" for the other possible meanings. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) -- The Anome (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)15 July Martyrs BridgeBosphorus Bridge – As per WP:Common names, the title of the article should remain Bosphorus Bridge, as that is how the bridge is known in the English speaking world. Even within Turkey, it is still called Boğaziçi Köprüsü (Bosphorus Bridge). The name change is not justified and should be moved back, since it was done without notifying the talk page on a controversial move. Central Data Bank (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lega NordNorthern League (Italy) – As announced, I propose again the move of this page, for Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Official names. Above all, Northern League is the official english name of this party (see the name used in the website of the european party of LN, the Movement for a Europe of Nations and Freedom [1], and of the Italian Chamber of Deputies [2]). Then, "Northern League" is absolutely the most common name of this party in the english language, used by important newspapers like The Guardian, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Telegraph ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), political websites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast ([11], [12]), News agencies like Reuters, ANSA and Bloomberg ([13], [14], [15]), books ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) and academic texts ([26], [27], [28], [29],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]). The last year the move was rejected with 5 favorable opinions and 5 contrary opinions, but the contrary opinions were based on inexact or not proven motivations: Lega Nord isn't more commonly used in English language academic texts (I demonstrated it above) and the names of regional sections of LN can be easily translated (the translated names are already present in the pages). I would correct the links myself in the pages of institutions, elections and important party's members. So, please to allow the move of the page and to remedy this inconsistency with the pages of other parties. I have proposed "Northern League (Italy)", but also "Northern League (political party)" could be fine as an alternative. Wololoo (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

April 24, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)SteeplechaseSteeplechase horse racing – A significant number of the incoming links to this article relate to the human kind of steeplechasing, despite my efforts to clean these up regularly. The human form of steeplechase is actually our most popular article on steeplechase over the horse variety, and has been so for several years, in spite of the human article being judged as the non-primary topic per page naming. The fact that the horse racing article's popularity peaks at the time of the Olympic and World Championships finals for the human sport suggests that leaving the horse racing article as a primary topic is causing a navigation issue for readers. I suggest this page be converted into a disambiguation page and the horse racing article moved to the proposed title or similar, to prevent the recurring issues with linking. SFB 21:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DianaDiana (disambiguation) – Diana should redirect to Diana, Princess of Wales per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The princess gets the most views and has much more long-term significance than anyone else named Diana. The goddess does not get very many views compared to the princess. Even a Google Search and Google Book Search come up with results for the princess and virtually none for the goddess. Diana, Princess of Wales is PRIMARYREDIRECT for the term Diana. CookieMonster755 20:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Edge (Fox TV series)The Edge (TV series) – The article is currently over-disambiguated – as proof of this, The Edge (TV series) currently redirects to here. The other two TV shows with this title are news programs and are currently disambiguated with the (correct) term "TV program" (as well as the network they air(ed) on), so this is the only true "TV series" in the bunch. Leaving the redirect at The Edge (Fox TV series) should be sufficient, along with the current hatnote at the article(s). --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 17:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mages (company)Mages. – This is the company's legal name and branding (the . is part of the company name). For some reason, a user reverted this acceptable article name change Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SADSad – Many entries on the disambiguation page are not acronyms requiring initial caps. The top entry is Sad, which redirects to Sadness, but that top entry can be simply the actual article title, Sadness, which already has a hatnote directing users to the dab page and anyone who wishes to research Sadness and types "Sad" will see "Sadness" listed as the dab page's initial entry.     Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 16:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Aldolase (disambiguation)List of aldolases – This page is not really a disambiguation page (it does not "lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title" (WP:DAB). I suggest moving it to a title suitable for a list article, and replacing the disambiguation tag with a suitable Category/s. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bharuch districtBharuch District – In order to capitalise the 'd' in district, the page with capitalisation already exists and may need deleting, as it redirects to this page without the capital 'd' Arif3000 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MSG (TV network)MSG Network – It seemed the page was moved several years ago. I am proposing moving it back, the name of the official name of the network is still the MSG Network even though it is often referred to as only MSG on-air. The corporate website and press releases still refer to it as the "MSG Network" [36] [37] Another similar pages would be USA Network (referred to only as USA) Rusf10 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

April 23, 2018[edit]

April 22, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Jersey Shore Family VacationJersey Shore: Family Vacation – I had moved "Jersey Shore Family Vacation" to "Jersey Shore: Family Vacation" (note the colon in the title) presuming it to be an uncontroversial technical move per WP:BEFOREMOVING, but apparently it isn't. One User:Fdljksdfjlksfajklsdflkj has used "copy/paste move" to copy & paste all the text back to the other title article. Copy/paste move is prohibited, per WP:BEFOREMOVING ("because doing so fragments the edit history."). So now I'm making a move request since it is now established as possibly a controversial move. My reasoning is: the network and distributor uses a colon in its titling, see [39] and [40]. Maybe the title lacked a colon during development, but it since does include the colon. See also official Youtube clips [41]. ~DA1 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

April 21, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Misogyny in horror filmsMisogyny and horror films – Unlike an article like Misogyny in sports, which has proven examples of misogyny, this article selectively quotes people who interpret the content of horror films as misogynist and reads more like an essay examining only one side. The proposed title would imply a relationship without explicitly stating that horror films are misogynist, which is debatable. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NBA playoffsNBA Playoffs – The articles on specific playoff years are all titled "XXXX NBA Playoffs" (with a capital P), so this article should also have a capital P in it. — MRD2014 Talk 14:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AztecAztecs – For the reasons stated in the talk page discussion, including conformity with other article titles such as Vikings or Germans, and to make it clearly a noun and not an adjective. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

April 20, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Jesus' Name doctrineBaptism in the name of Jesus – This page is more about baptism in the name of Jesus than anything else. While it may fit closely with a Oneness Christology, baptism in the name of Jesus is becoming more popular in other Christian groups as well (including some Trinitarian). The rejection of the Trinity is a Christological issue whereas this is an issue of the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus which may or may not have Christological implications. I suggest that this page be renamed to "Baptism in the name of Jesus" to account for this. Other pages such as Oneness Pentecostal (referring to the Oneness Pentecostal movement as a whole) and Modalistic Monarchianism (referring to Oneness Christology) cover specific topics whereas this page seems the most generalized and unhelpful which makes it difficult to improve. To me it would be more useful if this page focused in on "Baptism in Jesus name." Of course, this could also fit in a subsection in Baptism if it would be given adequete coverage, but my concern is that it wouldn't be since it's focus is different to the general topic of Baptism. Mustardseed1 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 10:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Trap musicTrap music (hip hop) – "Trap music" originally existed as an article until a consensus was reached to split it into two - Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM). There were disagreements about how the split was done as an editor asserted that the page should have been moved to the new title instead of splitting manually (via cut-and-paste) in order to preserve history. The pages eventually went through some moves and histmerges and ended up as below: *"Trap music" turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page Trap (without the past history) *"Trap music (hip hop)" became the main article with the significant history *"Trap music (EDM)" was split into its own article (via cut-and-paste) An editor recently requested a move at WP:RMT to move "Trap music (hip hop)" to "Trap music", unilaterally reversing the established consensus and the article was moved. This page should be moved back to Trap music (hip hop) as it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there was a longstanding consensus to support its position. KingAndGod 10:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]


  • (Discuss)BAMTech MediaBamtech – Common name seems to be BAMTech not BAMTech Media, where this was just move based on the supposed official name. Bamtech is concise, natural and sentence case. BAMTech Media is overly concise. While there is a BAM Technologies (, MLB/Disney's BAMTech is the primary subject as BAM Technologies doesn't look like it would qualify for an article. Google Books comes up with 960 BAMTech results to 856 BAMTech Media results. BAMTECH LLC is the company's legal official name per the website (see copyright footer at the bottom of page). At WP, we don't included legal suffixes like LLC, except to disambiguate which isn't needed. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TV listings (UK)TV listings – This term is not UK-specific, and moving this to primary will encourage further expansion. The current primary dab is almost useless and misleading, since broadcast programming is a topic about how broadcasters make choices of what to put on, not about how viewers get information. electronic program guides exist, but is focused on the digital distribution of schedules on set-top boxes, "TV listings" is more about schedules accessed from paper and internet. -- Netoholic @ 17:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.  samee  converse  11:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2018 Formula One World Championship2018 FIA Formula One World Championship – After an extensive discussion about moving "season" articles to "chsmpionship" articles, the Formula 1 WikiProject achieved a consensus to move all articles from 1984 to present to "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship". Overnight, an editor has taken it upon himself to subsequently move those articles again, this time to "19/20XX Formula One World Championship", citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE as justification for the move. However, COMMONNAME and PRECISE were taken into consideration during the initial discussion and there has been no subsequent attempt to establish a consensus beyond his claim that he would move the articles "if there is no further opposition" despite that opposition directing him to the previous consensus. All articles from 1984 to 2019 should be moved back to the agreed-upon "19/20XX FIA Formula One World Championship" format, at least until the community has a chance to discuss it. After all, it took nearly three months to agree upon the original move; this editor thinks it reasonable to move nearly forty articles with just three days' warning. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


See also[edit]