Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions (alt)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

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

February 23, 2017[edit]

  • Holden Racing TeamWalkinshaw Racing – (Discuss) – Consenses at Talk:Holden Racing Team#Article name 2017, after 6 months, 3 editors for (Option 2), none against. Walkinshaw Racing was a standalone article, content has been merged into Holden Racing Team with the former currently a redirect to the latter, so may require an article merge to retain history. Not sure if this requires a different request path to be gone down. Impala27 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22, 2017[edit]

  • Genesis creation narrativeGenesis creation story – (Discuss) – This is a very long proposal, but given my prior experience with a previous move request on this topic, it is important to be very specific, and to lead with as much data as possible. If you just want to read a summary first, see the TL;DR at the bottom. First, a bit of history on the move requests of this page: 'Genesis creation narrative' has not been stable, subject to 8 move requests in the past 4 years. It is likely to continue to be contentious. I apologize for bringing yet another move request to this article, but a move request to 'Genesis creation story' has never been attempted, though in the last move request to 'Genesis creation myth' (which failed), 'story' received tepid support in a limited discussion, but the subject was muddled by the main polarization of 'myth' vs 'narrative'. A limited discussion of 'story' also appeared in the move request to 'Creation story in Genesis' though it was opposed mainly due to formatting that doesn't affect the title 'Genesis creation story'. As an attempt to provide a solution to the issue of fragmenting discussion, can I please make a kind request that we do not discuss support for 'Genesis creation myth'. While any consensus is subject to change, the 'myth' title has been discussed to death in many, many discussions (6 of the 8 move requests since the current title took over in 2010) to the point of being a WP:SNOW issue. Please see previous discussions of 'myth' for reasons of why it has failed to reach a consensus, however, I hope that we can completely avoid discussion of 'myth' in this move request. Further discussion of 'myth' as a proposed title can be discussed in future move requests, whether this move request is successful or not. The following is a list comparing most popular titles that have been proposed for the title of this article, with several different search quote options for each: Google Scholar: *"genesis creation story"--google scholar ~1,150 results [1] *"genesis creation myth"--google scholar ~187 results [2] *"genesis creation narrative"--google scholar ~448 results [3] *genesis "creation story"--google scholar ~18,900 results [4] *genesis "creation myth"--google scholar ~10,600 results [5] *genesis "creation narrative"--google scholar ~5,140 results [6] *"Creation in Genesis"--google scholar ~5,100 results [7] Google Books: *"genesis creation story"--google books ~5,500 results [8] *"genesis creation myth"--google books ~1,400 results [9] *"genesis creation narrative"--google books ~2,900 results [10] *genesis "creation story"--google books ~49,500 results [11] *genesis "creation myth"--google books ~13,100 results [12] *genesis "creation narrative"--google books ~14,200 results [13] *"Creation in Genesis"--google books ~41,000 results [14] Google News: *"genesis creation story"--google news ~191 results [15] *"genesis creation myth"--google news ~10 results [16] *"genesis creation narrative"--google news ~54 results [17] *genesis "creation story"--google news ~1,820 results [18] *genesis "creation myth"--google news ~475 results [19] *genesis "creation narrative"--google news ~193 results [20] *"Creation in Genesis"--google news ~652 results [21] Google search trends: *In google trends, the situation is even more polarised, with >95% of all searches being from "Genesis creation story" or "Creation in genesis". Historical use in books (Ngram): *Even in Google Ngram results, which track usage in books dating back to 1800, 'Genesis creation story' and 'Creation in Genesis' are overwhelmingly more common than either 'Genesis creation narrative' or 'Genesis creation myth'. This indicates that 'Genesis creation story' has always been a common name for the subject. *Interestingly, for those who claim that 'creation myth' is the 'correct' descriptor for this type of topic, perhaps you should have a look at this Ngram search that indicates that the term 'creation story' has always been just as common as 'creation myth'. While all of the search results are subject to false positives, they can still be taken as a general trend of the popularity of the various descriptors. As can clearly be seen in the data, 'Genesis creation story' and 'Creation in Genesis' are the most used in every category. 'Creation in Genesis', especially in book and scholar results, is most likely bloated by the fact that this word combination will often appear as part of natural use in sentences where it is not being used as a descriptive term (i.e. "the story of creation in Genesis is..." or "the account of creation in Genesis..."). Whereas when 'Genesis creation story' is used naturally in a sentence it is always a descriptive term (i.e. "the Genesis creation story is..."). Despite this, 'creation story' is still used far more commonly in articles relating to Genesis in Scholarly results. A previous move request has also been attempted to 'Creation in Genesis' which failed due to near unanimous oppose !votes. It was also discussed in a section of the last move discussion, where most of the opposition was due to reasonably robust arguments against 'Creation in Genesis' not being not specific enough and failing WP:PRECISION (i.e. this article only discusses the first two parts of Genesis, not the whole book). For the above reasons, I think that 'Creation in Genesis' is inappropriate as a title and unlikely to gain any kind of consensus, though it does seem to be a reasonably common google search term in trends, as well as a relatively common term used to refer to the topic. 'Genesis creation story', on the other hand, is both descriptive as well as being far more common than either 'myth' or 'narrative' in all of the available searchable results and search trends. It appears to be relatively neutral, and although there is a second meaning to 'story' ("she is telling stories") it is obscure, informal, and most importantly the grammatical form that this meaning needs in order to be construed is not the same as the proposed title. This contrasts strongly with myth's second meaning (A fictitious story, person, or thing), which is both common, and easily construable in the grammatical titles that have been proposed in the past (this is the primary reason for the failure of myth to gain consensus). There is one notable argument that has been brought up against this title choice by some editors in previous discussions; that the account of creation in Genesis is divided into two individual stories, rather than one. However I don't consider this an issue, as it is common in the literature to refer to both chapters of Genesis collectively as the 'Genesis creation story'; considering the account of the creation of the earth and man, and the account of Adam and Eve as a single story about the origin of the earth and man. The overwhelmingly large usage of the term demonstrates this much better than I can. TL;DR 'Genesis creation story' is both an appropriate title, as well as being the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, especially when compared to the current title 'Genesis creation narrative' or the oft-proposed 'Genesis creation myth', as in all relevant data 'narrative' and 'myth' are both the least used and least searched for descriptors. Only 'Genesis creation story' and "Creation in Genesis' could be considered WP:COMMONNAMEs for this topic (in Google Scholar, Books, Ngrams as well as Trends) and 'Creation in Genesis' is not appropriate as a title for other reasons (and has failed a move request previously). 'Genesis creation narrative' is not even close to being the WP:COMMONNAME in any of the above resources, nor is 'Genesis creation myth' close to being the WP:COMMONNAME. Therefore we should move this article to 'Genesis creation story'. InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • William O'DeaWilliam O'Dea (freeholder) – (Discuss) – Hi. I'm requesting that William O'Dea becomes the main disambiguation page. William is short for Willie (at Willie O'Dea - an Irish member of parliament) and I think it would be better to have the disambiguation page at William O'Dea. The current primary topic is a Hudson County freeholder and I don't think that's highly notable to become the primary topic. The other subject is an Irish republican who is known in Ireland. In short, I propose this page be disambiguated and the disambiguation page be at the main title. All the best, st170e 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Red bean pasteAdzuki bean paste – (Discuss) – Although adzuki beans are called red beans, adzuki bean paste can be either red or white. A Korean dessert called baram-tteok, for example, is filled with white paste made from skinned adzuki beans. As the beans have red skin and white inside, the paste made of skinned beans are white. MaeveCosgrave (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • HuguenotHuguenots – (Discuss) – After all, this article is about a group of people. Moreover, virtually every version of this article in other languages uses plural like "Hugenotten" on the German Wikipedia for example.Ernio48 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21, 2017[edit]

  • İznik potteryIznik pottery – (Discuss) – This is a non-standard spelling of the term. The dotted capital İ is the town of İznik spelt using the modern Turkish alphabet. English-language sources on the actual pottery do not spell Iznik this way, they call it Iznik pottery. The dotted I spelling should just be a redirect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Æthelbald of WessexÆthelbald, King of Wessex – (Discuss) – This name would be clearer, would conform with other articles such as Stephen, King of England and John, King of England. He is shown as "Æthelbald (d. 860), king of the West Saxons" in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but other sources such as A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain and The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England have "of Wessex", and I think this would be clearer for readers than "of the West Saxons". If this move is accepted, I would suggest a similar change for other Anglo-Saxon kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • WBACHWBQX – (Discuss) – WBACH has permanently gone off the air after 25 years of service.[22] It is now WBQX FRANK FM 106.9. The page should be named WBQX with a hidden search link for WBACH; not the other way around. It is confusing and misleading. The content needs to reflect the current situation. Maineartists (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Saartjie BaartmanSarah Baartman – (Discuss) – Current and recent sources use the "Sarah" form of her name. Saartjie is the diminutive "nickname" form of the name, in the context of her history it amounts to patronising infantilisation. Referring to an adult with a childish nickname is also a common way to "other" a person (motivated by racism). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • AtanaAtana (raga) – (Discuss) – ‘Atana’ is in four or more languages with different meanings, probably all equally important. What an average Western scholar would know it as (so maybe also historical English usage, at least for classics & European language scholars) is an alternate spelling of Greek name/goddess Athena or a theorized ‘proto-Athena,’ used in some areas of ancient Greece, which I'd prefer over the raga and other usages if one language should have the main name, but the disambiguation page should become the main article. dchmelik (t|c) 05:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20, 2017[edit]

  • 2017 Kid Choice Awards2017 Kids' Choice Awards – (Discuss) – main target was blocked by full protection from vandals for a longer time than asked for; information here is correct but it can't persist with an incorrectly named page title. I have no objections to this move at all (I've been trying without success to open up the proper name to semi-protective editing). Nate (chatter) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • McCain StadiumAthletic Ground (Scarborough) – (Discuss) – Football consensus is to use traditional names, where one exists, rather than sponsored ones (e.g. City of Manchester Stadium or Almondvale Stadium). The ground was known as the Athletic Ground for the majority of its existence. I think that what has happened here is that the McCain name was a particularly early example of a sponsored ground name, in the UK a least; and in an earlier Wikipedia age, the article was created under the then-current name, when consensus on these cases probably hadn't developed. Jellyman (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Buddhist apocryphaPost-canonical Buddhist texts – (Discuss) – The latest edit Special:PermanentLink/766494466 by SOHAN18 brought home to me the problems with this article's title. Although I am not an expert with regard to Mahayana Buddhism, in modern Theravada studies terms like apocrypha are hardly used anymore, scholars preferring post-canonical or vernacular instead, depending on the types of texts. Apocrypha implies a lack of authenticity, and might therefore go against WP:NEUTRAL. What is an authentic work and what not was usually a matter of debate in most of Buddhist history, and I doubt whether there ever were any works vehemently and unanimously opposed as was the case with the Roman Christian Church, from which the term apocrypha originates. Authenticity in Buddhism has usually been something which comes in many shades. Propose move as specified. S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Soylent (food)Soylent (meal replacement) – (Discuss) – Submitting another RM as suggested by the closer of the previous RM and by others (with no objection expressed in either RM). The product is primarily a beverage, not a solid food, and the alternative disambiguation term seems less likely to be confused with the food in the film and book. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • RV Farley MowatMV Farley Mowat – (Discuss) – All current sources refer to the vessel as MV Farley Mowat, including court documents in relation to vessel seizure, and despite original classification as RV. Move had been proposed (see talk page above) and since no disagreement was referenced, page was moved as uncontroversial. Move was reverted almost immediately, so raising this here for formal discussion. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Chamerion latifoliumEpilobium latifolium – (Discuss) – The accepted binomial for this species is Epilobium latifolium, not Chamerion latifolium as stated in the article. Chamerion latifolium is the synonym and Epilobium latifolium is the accepted name. See [23]. I therefore propose that the article is moved to Epilobium latifolium (which is currently a redirect) and that Chamerion latifolium becomes a redirect to Epilobium latifolium. Plantsurfer 16:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Al-SalamiyahSalamiyah – (Discuss) – Most common English language usage: Google book counts: Al-Salamiyah, Hama 58, Salamiyah, Hama 146; news counts: Al-Salamiyah, Hama 60, Salamiyah, Hama 160. Originally created as Salamiyah, moved to Al-Salamiyah without discussion. Batternut (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 10 (number)10 – (Discuss) – Number 10 is the primary topic for title "10", with similar arguments to the 19 articles (see previous discussions for 1 and for 2…9). The dab page 10 (disambiguation) doesn't need to move because it already points to a spelling variant Ten (disambiguation). This RM is not intended to set a precedent regarding what should happen with articles titled 11 to 100, which are currently either dab pages or legacy pointers to the years. — JFG talk 12:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Chronica MajoraChronica maiora – (Discuss) – The spelling 'majora' is a holdover from antiquated editions; the original spelling (already adopted on German and Latin Wikipedia) is 'maiora'. AndrewNJ (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Gurindji strikeWave Hill walk-off – (Discuss) – The WP:COMMONNAME for this article is Wave Hill walk-off. Compare the Google search results of 12,000 for "Gurindji strike" and 800,000 for "Wave Hill walk off". The same is shown in official sources and newspapers and Google Trends, which shows a >10 times higher search rate. Laurdecl talk 10:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Marvelous USAXseed Games – (Discuss) – Revert move made without discussion that multiple editors have disagreed with (including even an attempted cut-and-paste move). See this article. Marvelous USA has two divisions, XSeed Games, which is the name on a bunch of relevant games with Wikipedia articles, and Marvelous Online, a non-notable custodian of dying and irrelevant browser MMORPGs that don't generally have Wikipedia articles - with the one exception, Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine, but that's dead now, and Marvelous Online only managed its last two years. I'm not even sure if they're still doing it, their website (which, granted, WAS moved to Marvelous USA) doesn't list any of the Online games, only XSEED's games. Anyway, Marvelous USA is still the "corporate parent", but all the games say XSeed, their Twitter & FB say XSeed, etc. The store isn't at Stichting INGKA Foundation, it's at IKEA. SnowFire (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Anti-Christian sentimentRecent anti-Christian violence and intimidation – (Discuss) – As discussed previously on the article's Talk page, the article basically only covers recent attacks, neglecting anything more than a few decades old, whereas the complete history is covered in the Persecution of Christians article. Also, the article is not about sentiment. It is about actions, not feelings. As someone put it here on the Talk page a couple of years ago, "the article gives readers the impression that being anti-Christian means committing acts of violence and terror, which is kind of like saying being anti-Creationist means that you have to kill Creationists." As I put it nearly five years ago, "If the article is devoted to a specific period of time, shouldn't that scope be reflected in its title?" —BarrelProof (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19, 2017[edit]

  • Achille Émile MeeussenA. E. Meeussen – (Discuss) – Moving was blocked because there is a redirect from that page, it seems. The spelling of A. E. Meeussen's forenames seems to be unknown for certain, but Professor Swiggers believes the second name was probably Emile rather than Émile and suggests that I remove the accent. Meeussen himself always signed his articles A. E. Meeussen, so following the suggestion of another Belgian researcher it seems best to use this as the title of the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • SynthpopSynth-pop – (Discuss) – The Google test lists "about 5,570,000 results" for synth-pop and "about 5,890,000" results for synthpop. However, it's very likely that synthpop only gets more web results than synth-pop because of this article. If we limit the search to news pieces, we get: * Synth-pop: About 37,200 results * Synthpop: About 19,400 results And when limited to books: * Synth-pop: About 7,050 results * Synthpop: About 4,170 results Historically, synth-pop (or synth pop) appears to be the more common spelling. This is also true for technopop and techno pop: * Techno pop: About 7,520 results (books) / 3,450 (news) * Technopop: About 2,780 results (books) / 791 (news) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • John Blair (disambiguation)John Blair – (Discuss) – The base name is a redirect to a page with a "Jr." yet there are 20 people on the disambiguation page. The person at the base url may be well-known with the US though outside of that supreme court is not one of the renowned jurists of the world. The disambiguation page should reside at the base url as there are so many John Blairs, and clean-up of links to the US justice from base url can be achieved easily, and there is no page move required beyond the disambig page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Empress ShōshiFujiwara no Shōshi – (Discuss) – The main title, "Empress Shoshi", is technically incorrect and cannot be considered accurate from a historical point of view. Wikipedia should not perpetuate incorrect forms. According to WP:MOS-JP (which is a guideline for Japan-related articles) for the Japanese emperors and empresses we should use the form [[Emperor/Empress {name}]], which is a partial translation of their posthumous names. On posthumous names not all the empresses have them, as some of those names have been either lost or changed throughout the history. If any of the 諡号 shigō (posthumous name) or 追号 tsuigō (another form of posthumous name) names of an empress is known then it can be used, for example Tachibana no Kachiko who can also be called by her posthumous name "Empress Danrin". Otherwise, like many other ancient empresses, Shoshi should be styled as Fujiwara no Shoshi, as I can't find a posthumous name for her except "Jōtōmon-in" but she's never been commonly known as "Empress Jōtōmon-in" in sources, which can be realized by a single Google search [1] & [2]. She was first Empress, then Grand Empress, then Senior Grand Empress, and then an Imperial Lady — but she was Fujiwara no Shōshi all along. I had discussed it with Japanese Wikipedians a long time ago and they said "Posthumous names for Empresses were disappeared in late Asuka-Nara period (上代, 6-8 century), and Nyoin name (女院) started to be used instead". Furthermore they noted that Nyoin names aren't in use today anymore. It can obviously be seen on Wikipedia that almost all the articles about ancient Japanese empresses are titled "Clan name" 'no' "name". This page shouldn't be an exception. (it also makes it a WP:CONSISTENT move). Keivan.fTalk 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ahmad ShamlooAhmad Shamlou – (Discuss) – Various spellings are used for the last name all over the internet. Even in the article, there's been various spellings, which I just fixed to be consistent. There's one spelling that's preferred his estate, and used by his official website (, that's Shamlou, and we better use that spelling here, too. I cannot Move manually, because there's a redirect set on the target to the current title. Behnam (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 03:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • TNA Television ChampionshipTNA King of the Mountain Championship – (Discuss) – This was the final name of the championship before it was retired, and thusly the name of the page should remain as such. It shouldn't matter that it was called the TV title during the Hogan years (it wasn't even defended or mentioned for an entire tear before being deactivated). More people are going to recognize the title by its more recent and final name. It makes sense for the page to remain as the name the title retired on not it's 3 name change. Hellboy42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18, 2017[edit]

  • Bethany DillonBethany Barnard – (Discuss) – It seems the subject is now releasing music under the new name. We would need to leave a redirect at Bethany Dillon, and likely have to modify the article to reflect the new name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pride Week (Toronto)Pride Toronto – (Discuss) – While this move was rejected in an RM discussion in 2010, and then suggested again in 2012 without being addressed either way (see unheadlined comment by Smckinnon at the bottom of the QUAIA section above), there's been a significant change as of 2016 that warrants revisiting the proposal: in 2016, although the primary community festival still took place in the final week leading up to the parade itself, Pride as a whole was not declared as just that week, but for the entirety of June. The final week was still the biggest locus of activity, but the flag-raising kickoff at Nathan Phillips Square was held on May 31 and declared Pride Month rather than Pride Week ([24]), and a program of Pride-related events was scheduled throughout the entire month of June rather than being confined solely to the week of the main community festival alone ([25]). And while certainly stuff could change between now and June, that is currently what's expected to happen again this year. So, rather than quibbling over whether the event is "Pride Week" or "Pride Month", I believe the best course of action here is now to move the article to the title Pride Toronto. ("Pride Week" and "Pride Month" can still be retained as redirects, so that a person who's expecting one of those titles will still get here.) I would also note that the idea that this article is about the event rather than the organization, which is what was proffered in the original RM discussion as a reason not to move the article, isn't all that convincing an argument — the article, as written, is somewhat of a hybrid of "the event" and "the organization", as evidenced by the content about QUAIA and financial difficulties and the stuff that should be here but isn't yet about the current BLM/police fracas. There wouldn't be much basis for us to maintain two separate articles about the event and the organization that runs it, but the idea that this article isn't at least partially about the organization isn't really an accurate reflection of what's actually in this article. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17, 2017[edit]

  • Wu ZetianEmpress Wu – (Discuss) – This is the name used in most English-language sources I've seen. See also Google Ngrams. There is of course the concern that "Empress Wu" is ambiguous (Empress Wu (disambiguation)), but do a GBook search of "Empress Wu" [32] and review the results one by one, I'd say over 95% of the usage is about Wu Zetian. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies, and if you multiply the top "Empress Wu" curve in the Ngram graph by 95%, it'd still be well above the bottom "Wu Zetian" curve (by at least 50%). Two other considerations: 1) "Wu Zetian" gives the impression that "Zetian" is a personal name (it's not). This is the same argument presented in previous discussions like Wikipedia_talk:History standards for China-related articles#Emperor article titles discouraging translations like Han Wudi. 2) In Chinese, the term "Wu Zetian" is a hodgepodge that never appeared in traditional historiography as far as I know. Traditional history books most often called her 武后 ("Empress Wu"). Timmyshin (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. AjaxSmack  02:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.JFG talk 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • PeafowlPeacock – (Discuss) – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl[33], and 65 million for peacock![34]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hydronic balancingHydraulic balancing – (Discuss) – Hydronic balancing does not exist. You can perform hydraulic balancing on any hydronic heating/ cooling system as an act of optimizing the pressure of the closed system so energy is exposed to the surface at maximum efficiency. Thenaturalist (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Class-T amplifierClass T – (Discuss) – The article is about a trademarked product. There is no such thing as a "Class-T amplifier", Class T is simply a trademark for this company's design of a class D amplifier. This is clear and there is no dispute. Because of this, we should be referring to "Class T" as a trademark, and class D as the design, both in the article and in the title. Also, I believe it should be "was a trademark" as I don't see a live trademark, and the parent company seems out of business. Best I can tell, the dash wasn't used either. Second choice is move to company name. Current name is misleading. (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cosme de TorrèsCosme de Torres – (Discuss) – Cosme de Torres is a Spanish person, but Torrès is how you spell his name in Portuguese. The grave accent reminds you to pronounce the "e" fully, which would not happen automatically in Portuguese, but it does happen automatically in Spanish. Note that the Spanish-language page also has no accent. Patrick Schwemmer (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • American Media (publisher)American Media, Inc. – (Discuss) – PThe company seems to consistently use ", Inc." in it's company name, this article uses that structure throughout, and the articles on the tabloid magazines they own seem to consistently use "American Media, Inc." While the Inc in most common names is often only on official stationary, this seems to be a more natural non-parenthetical way of being clear. On the other hand, this article was created by Jimbo and the current name is hardly terrible. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 16, 2017[edit]

  • Meadowhall CentreMeadowhall – (Discuss) – The shopping centre is commonly known simply as "Meadowhall", as per its own website and logo, and indeed the lead sentence of the article. It is clearly the primary topic for the name. The existing dab page does not need to be retained as - other than the shopping centre - it mentions only the surrounding area of Sheffield (which has no article of its own) and various transport connections, which are covered on the separately existing Meadowhall station dab page anyway. Jellyman (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Elm Guest House child abuse scandalElm Guest House claims and controversy – (Discuss) – What scandal?! This is a controversy at best, a hoax and a case of mass hysteria at worst! Even the title in its present form is itself arguably libellous towards Field Marshal Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor, and quite possibly actually actionable! We have to take by inference Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe's apology [37] as Commissioner of the Met Police as an admission and acceptance of the whole story being false by the Commissioner and the Met Police; and honestly, who are we, us eminent experts here to say that the Met are wrong on this?! As things currently stand (now), there were no child abuse in Elm Guest House by this alleged, supposed or fictitious "Tory Thatcherite Freemason (insert Jewish or Zionist or Jewish Zionist) Westminster VIP Paedophile wing" headed by Sir Edward Heath as "Grand Master", end of story, period, or full stop! (and can we possibly have some mass WP:RevDel page purge as well please I would perhaps suggest, thank you!) -- (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • EdernyEderney – (Discuss) – The correct and official name for this village is Ederney, which is confirmed by this. It clearly states: The townland name from which the village derives is Ederny but the official spelling of the village has been Ederney since 1992.. A redirect already exists at Ederney pointing to Ederny so I can not simply move the page. Whilst it would seem an uncontroversial move, the article originally stood at Ederney since its creation back in January 2006 until it was moved undiscussed back in February 2013 by @Asarlaí: who cited: this is the official and most popular spelling, without providing any evidence and which going by the above source is incorrect. This move was reverted by @Ukireland: before Asarlaí reinstated their undiscussed and contested move [38], to which the article has remained ever since. Mabuska (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Discrimination against atheistsPersecution of atheists – (Discuss) – This page has gone beyond just "discrimination". It lists examples of executions, mob deaths, etc. A move is needed for consistency with articles like Persection of Christians and Persecution of Muslims and ALL of the other articles. It is NPOV to claim that some of things that happen (especially in Muslim countries) are only discrimination. (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2017 (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.
  • Insee thongInsee Thong – (Discuss) – Proper capitalisation. Speedy denied because it was apparently intentionally decapitalised by User:Wisekwai back in 2007, but there doesn't appear to be any policy or guideline that supports this. Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 03:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Abysmal (album)Abysmal – (Discuss) – Abysmal currently redirects to the dab page Abyss, but this album is the only entry there that has this title, and I don't find it likely that most readers would expect to find it there. It would be better to move this page over the redirect and add a hatnote linking to the dab instead. --MASHAUNIX 20:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Catherine Blake (disambiguation)Katherine Blake – (Discuss) – Since this dab page has no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, certainly not one which engenders more searches than all the other topics combined, the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" is unnecessary. In view of the fact that the dab page lists two Catherines, two Katherines and two Katharines, the choice of "Catherine" was arbitrary and resulted in the need for the qualifier. Ultimately, this page can just as easily be named Katherine Blake or Katharine Blake, both of which redirect to this page and do not require a qualifier, thus enabling us to discard "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pilgrim FathersPilgrim (Plymouth Colony) – (Discuss) – See above reasons posted a week ago with no comments or objections. This page used to be called Pilgrim (Plymouth Colony). Pilgrim is the Common Name, not Pilgrim Fathers. "Plymouth Colony" distinguishes the page from the more general page for religious pilgrims. "Pilgrim Fathers" may be used in the U.K. but this article certainly bears greater significance in the U.S. as the Pilgrim story is one of the core stories of the founding of the American colonies and by extension, the U.S. Also, Pilgrim Fathers is archaic and factually incorrect--the settlers included women and children. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Fallen Empires (album)Fallen Empires – (Discuss) – The article about the Magic set was merged to a list-type article of early Magic sets. I would suggest therefore that the current WP:PTOPIC would be the article which clearly displays notability, which is the album, and should thus enjoy the un-disambiguated name. This is borne out by an average 2-3x (but same magnitude) pageview comparison. (I would guess the spike of the one article relates to some blog coverage of the Magic set.) Izno (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • Red Cross with Triptych egg → ? – (Discuss) – This page was moved from Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) to Red Cross with Triptych by MaybeMaybeMaybe in 2012. I subsequently moved it to Red Cross with Triptych egg, since the article was not about a triptych but about an egg and(that was careless) unaware that it had already existed once under Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). It appears that a large proportion of the Faberge egg articles exist with either the parenthetical Faberge egg at the end or simply the word "egg". I attempted to move this article back into Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) but was prevented from doing so by its edit history. There is no explanation as to why the article was moved away from this namespace in the first place, and no discussion anywhere about the move. I see no reason not to move it back (unless there really is a good reason somewhere). KDS4444 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Neden (album)Neden – (Discuss) – Neden currently redirects to Vagina, for which it is a slang term, but it is not common enough to be mentioned on its target page. “Neden” is the name of this album and should therefore target this article, taking precedence over uncommon slang. Redirecting it here would create an unnecessary disambiguation, so I propose moving this article to Neden. Gorobay (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Im Yoon-ahLim Yoon-ah – (Discuss) – As per a section above, Yoona's surname is Lim, not Im. The incorrect surname here on Wikipedia has lead sites such as Google to display her name likewise erroneously. Not only is Lim her actual surname, but also by convention surnames are romanized traditionally. The same way Kim Tae-yeon is not Gim Tae-yeon, Lim Yoon-ah should not be Im Yoon-ah. To sum up, two reasons: 1. Lim is Yoona's actual surname instead of Im; 2. Lim is the conventional way to romanize the surname. GeT RiGhT (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sette note in neroThe Psychic – (Discuss) – per WP:UE and WP:NCF#Foreign-language films. As confirmed by the poster appended to the article, this Italian feature was marketed, distributed and reviewed in the English-speaking world under the title The Psychic. Although the 2013 exchange ["Italian titles vs English titles"], above, postulates that the main title header should display the Italian title because there are multiple English-language titles, a search of film listings in newspapers across the English-speaking world, only finds "The Psychic" as a title which was released for public exhibition and on DVD. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "NBC News Revamps Leadership and Acquires Stake in European Network". The New York Times Company. Retrieved 20 February 2017.