Wikipedia:Requested moves

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.)

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

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

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

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

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

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

Undiscussed moves

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist|current page title|new page title|reason=reason for move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~. Consider pinging the requester to let them know about the objection.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 25 January 2021" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

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

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

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

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

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 25 January 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (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 25 January 2021

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (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 25 January 2021

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Any additional comments:

This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 25 January 2021

– why Example (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (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 25 January 2021

– why Example (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

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

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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

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


  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 38 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

January 25, 2021

  • (Discuss)Marduk-apla-iddina IIMerodach-Baladan – "Marduk-apla-iddina" is a more correct rendition of this king's name (as a direct transliteration) and he is the second king to use this name (hence "II"), but per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should still be "Merodach-Baladan" (without a regnal number); Google Ngrams shows that out of all rival renditions of the name, this version still prevails over the others (link). Looking through Google Scholar, I found the following statistics: "Marduk-apla-iddina" (613 hits), "Marduk-apla-iddina II" (302 hits), "Merodach-Baladan" (2050 hits), "Merodach-Baladan II" (399 hits). As this source shows, the version "Merodach-Baladan" is most commonly rendered without a regnal number, since this name is not applied to the earlier Marduk-apla-iddina I. Even when only recent sources are accounted for, "Merodach-Baladan" prevails; Google Scholar limited to sources from 2000 onwards gives "Marduk-apla-iddina" 452 hits and "Merodach-Baladan" 911 hits. For a precedent where an incorrect name is used for a monarch because it is more commonly used in academia and popularly, look at Arses of Persia, who is more correctly called Artaxerxes IV. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

January 24, 2021

  • (Discuss)AnonymizerAnonymous proxy – Anonymizer is a brand name(WP:NPOVTITLE), there are a number of different "anonymizer" products available for entirely unrelated purposes (e.g. photo anonymizer): first page of a google search showed only 3 relevant to this article, 4 unrelated products, 2 wiki pages (this one and company one), one link to the anonymizer company. All results for the first page of google for "anonymous proxy" were relevant to this article (WP:COMMONNAME). If someone mentioned an anonymizer to me I would have to ask them to clarify, if they were to mention an anonymous proxy I would know exactly what it meant (WP:PRECISE). From my POV this is clear cut, I'm putting it in the talk page as it has been mentioned before so wanted to check no one has a good reason to oppose. Editor/123 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 23, 2021

  • (Discuss)Tier fourTier 4Consistent with Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3. I don't know if there is any guidance on if we prefer DAB pages/articles (MOS:NUMERAL does say "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words") with numbers or words for numbers but as far as the 4 entries go, the 1st 2 do seem to use "4" more than "four" while the university meaning has a Tier four university redirect (and doesn't mention the term in the target) and the data meaning uses "Tier IV". The 1st entry has significant content on "Tier 4" and the 2nd has a bit (but is "Level 4"). WP:DABNAME seems to suggest the number form would be better. I would in fact note that Tier 4 could arguably be a redirect to the 1st entry The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 since as noted this seems to be the only common use of "Tier 4" given the other uses don't mention the term/are called similar. However this might be recentism and the DAB at the base name might make more sense and we won't need to add a hatnote from the regulations. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 22, 2021

  • (Discuss)Minari (film)Minari – I see little indication that the plant is so widely known as minari among English speakers as to make it the primary topic. The only articles that link to the redirect MinariGanghoe and Sukhoe—do so with a gloss: "minari (water dropworts)". Nardog (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wikipedia:Lamest edit warsWikipedia:Silliest edit wars – In the most recent article about this page (disclosure: I am quoted but hadn't seen the article until it ran), the author notes at the top that this page uses ableist language (specifically our use of lame). There was a March 2019 change suggesting Most ridiculous which did not have consensus. I'm starting a new discussion, with a new proposed title, to see if either consensus has changed and/or this new title might meet our needs. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of Diriliş Ertuğrul episodesList of Diriliş: Ertuğrul episodes – This article used to be for two TV series, Diriliş: Ertuğrul and Kuruluş: Osman, before that, it was only for Diriliş: Ertuğrul, so then we got a redirect. Now we have this article which is only for Diriliş: Ertuğrul (and another for Kuruluş: Osman) but I can't change it to the correct title (List of Diriliş: Ertuğrul episodes) because of the redirect. For now, the title is without the colon and I made some edits to the redirect so nobody appears on a redirect page when clicking on a link but can someone delete the redirect and correct this article's title. Limorina (talk!contribs) 15:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao F.C.Guangzhou F.C. – New official name (广州足球俱乐部) due to new regulation to disallow sponsored name or the name of the owner appears in the football club name. Also, Guangzhou F.C. already a common name (one of) and a former name already. Other Chinese article are all moved to new official name so consistency is also needed. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Infante Henrique, Duke of CoimbraHenrique de Bragança – Per common name. Both of the accessible sources call him "Henrique de Bragança", and this is the commonest name for him in google searches (e.g. [15]). There are no reliable sources at all for "Infante Henrique, Duke of Coimbra". The only reliable sources for "Infante Henrique" or "duke of Coimbra" in Google searches all refer to other people. DrKay (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LalitaLalita (disambiguation) – Please move this page as Lalita should be redirected to Tripura Sundari, because of the following reasons: * Lalita is a very important name of the goddess, even the texts related to her are starts with Lalita. * Lalita is popularly used to addressed Tripura Sundari, search "Lalita" on google and it will show the goddess only. * Most of the other topics are named the goddess. * Tripura Sundari gets far more page veiws. .💠245CMR💠.👥📜 03:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KC NWSLKansas City NWSL – "KC NWSL" is an abbreviation; every official press release from the team and most news reports use either "Kansas City NWSL" (or simply "Kansas City" when the league is assumed and does not need to be noted) as WP:COMMONNAME. Seany91 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

January 21, 2021

  • (Discuss)King Michael's CoupCoup of 23 August – Alternatively the Insurrection of 23 August. There seems to be preference for the term "Coup of 23 August" by English-language researchers covering the coup (see e.g. the use as article or chapter title by Dennis Deletant). This would also bring the title in line with usage in Romanian scholarship - the current title simply does not have a proper translation in Romanian. The only English language source currently in the article naming the event uses both "Coup of 23 August" and "Insurrection of 23 August" Anonimu (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)UTIUTI (disambiguation) – I believe urinary tract infection is the primary topic here. As far as pageviews it has more than 10 times the next most viewed entry and far more than the rest combined. It's a very commonly used abbreviation and clear winner for long-term significance. I realize the primary topic bar is higher for abbreviations, but I think this one clears it. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)History of the Philippines (1898–1946)Philippines under American rule – It sounds abnormal to read the article since the era from 1898 to 1946 was clearly defined as the era of American colonization, yet the page sounds too neutral for a country that once engaged in colonial expansionism. It needs to be known as the Philippines under American control, since the United States violently regenerated the independence of the Philippines and occupied it. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Israel Resilience PartyBlue and White (political party)Blue and White was dissolve to its parties: Telem, Yesh Atid and Hosen (Resilience) when Resilience inherited the name Blue and White. So the political list is now just one party: Resilience party. Today Blue and White changed its logo, distancing itself more from the alliance. This is a similar situation of what happened with Tkuma and National Union. National Union was a political alliance of serval parties but after it dissolved it was Tkuma party who inherit its name "National Union - Tkuma" (and was refer to just as National Union). Furthermore, Resilience Party don't have election symbol, the previous election symbol פה‎ was belong to Yesh Atid party. So I think we need to make order and split the articles. Sokuya (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Iconic Tower (Egypt)Iconic Tower – "Iconic Tower" used to refer people to "Legacy Tower in Bangladesh" and the page is now empty because they had no correlation and 'iconic' was only used as an adjective to refer to the Bangladesh tower, not as an actual name. Now, since Africa's tallest tower in Egypt under construction is officially called the 'Iconic Tower', it would make a lot more sense if it occupies the vacant wiki/Iconic_Tower page.[2][3][4][5][6] Ziad Rashad (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mun BhuridattaAjahn Mun – While I recognize this name is a good faith attempt at following WP:HONORIFICS. I think it is most suitable to change the name to Ajahn Mun for reasons of following basically all wiki title WP:CRITERIA. While Ajahn is an honorific, the subject is most well known by the title Ajahn Mun as it is the most recognizable common usage of the name and would be consistent with virtually all comparable figures such as Ajahn Maha Bua, Ajahn Chah, Luang Pu Thuat, etc. Mun alone is far too imprecise, and Mun Bhuridatta is not as recognizable as Ajahn Mun because not as many common people know Ajahn Mun's Dhamma name of Bhuridatta. While the name change may seem like a violation of the honorifics rule I'd like to point out exceptions are made for subjects where the name is most recognized with the honorific, like Mother Teresa as well as significant amounts of Christian clergy per Christian clergy naming conventions WP:NCWC. Although there are no official rules on naming Buddhist clergy as of this writing, I think the case of making an exception to the honorific rule is due and supported for this page per WP:CRITERIA of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and most importantly, Consistency Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

January 20, 2021

  • (Discuss)Signal MessengerOpen Whisper Systems – Requesting a re-renaming of this article to its original name. Based on the amount of available sources, I believe Open Whisper Systems is notable enough to have its own article. It is also temporally distinct from Signal Messenger LLC, which was created five years after the formation of OWS, in 2018. Signal Messenger LLC is now a subsidiary of the Signal Foundation, which was also created in 2018. I think it would make more sense to have Signal Messenger be a redirect to the Signal Foundation article instead of Open Whisper Systems. Dodi 8238 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kelvin–Stokes theoremStokes' theoremWP:COMMONNAME says that names used most frequently in reliable sources should be used on Wikipedia when a topic has multiple names or a name can be used for multiple topics. When I Google "Stokes' theorem" and search through sources like e-textbooks, university websites, and mathematical databases (which are presumably reliable for mathematical topics), they overwhelmingly refer to the "specialized"   case. And when I search "Generalized Stokes theorem," there are plenty of hits for that case. On the other hand, when I search "Kelvin-Stokes theorem," there ARE reliable sources that use that name, but it's not the most commonly known or the most likely to be searched by someone wanting to know more about this case. While few people know enough mathematics to describe the "specialized" Stokes' theorem, even fewer would be familiar with the more general case. I know that when I went to Stokes' theorem on Wikipedia, I was expecting the vector-calculus case. In short, I think this move would make the articles more useful to the average reader. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Cliffhanger (South Korean TV series)Jirisan (TV series) – I've seen the previous RM, so I hereby reason that, while the title is not official yet, someone used the title Cliffhanger because they misunderstood the source from the Korean Times, where it clearly uses the title Jirisan and says that it's inspired by the American movie Cliffhanger. And all of this happened before New Year... and now even the most reliable sources started using this title, so guess how they got the title. Regards. Angga (formerly Angga1061) 17:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 19, 2021

  • (Discuss)Nikolay Pimonenko (painter)Mykola Pymonenko – Most reliable sources use or recommend this version of the artist’s name. The spelling follows WP:UKR and practically every other romanization system for Ukrainian. Examples of reference sources include: * ABART Fine Art Archive lists his Ukrainian name in euro romanization, Mykola Kornylovyč Pymonenko, nationality Ukrainian.[17] * The five-volume Encyclopedia of Ukraine’s entry is Pymonenko, Mykola, “Prominent Ukrainian realist painter” (v IV, pp 287–88), and a slightly revised version is found in the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine.[18] * The Getty Research Union List of Artist Names prefers a hybrid spelling of the Ukrainian first name but surname either Russian or transliterated from a Russian-langage source, Pimonenko, Mykola, and lists Ukrainian nationality.[19] * The Library of Congress Name Authority File uses Pymonenko, Mykola Kornylovych, 1862-1912,[20] and consequently so do most English-language library authorities, e.g., Libraries Australia Authorities. * WorldCat Identities uses Cyrillic Ukrainian Пимоненко, Микола Корнилович 1862-1912 (=Pymonenko, Mykola Kornylovych per WP:UKR).[21] * Oxford Grove Art Online gives Pimonenko, Mykola (Kornylevych) [Nikolay Kornil’yevich], “Ukrainian painter” in the 2003 article,[22] but spells his name Mykola Pymonenko in “Ukraine” (2012).[23] * Oxford Benezit Dictionary of Artists lists Pimonenko, Nikolai or Nikolas Kornilievich, “Ukrainian.”[24] * WikiArt Visual Art Encyclopedia lists Mykola Pymonenko, nationality Ukrainian.[25] Searching Google Books by WP:GOOG (English-language books, name in quotes, excluding Wikipedia) yields 146 results for Mykola Pymonenko, 5 for Nikolay Pimonenko, and 85 for Nikolai Pimonenko. Google Scholar gives 2629. There is no reason to include the parenthetic disambiguation “(painter).”  —Michael Z. 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LancoLanco (disambiguation) – 1) A quick Google Search [26] show that 3 of the 4 first hits refer to the city and commune, not counting the sidebar to right that also shows the city and commune. 2) The city and commune of Lanco has long term significance that a band created in 2013 or defunct company does not have. As WP:Primary topic says: "long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". It is just unexplicable how a band created in 2013 would have predence or equal priority to the name as a centuries old settlement. Lanco is an essential part of the geography of Los Ríos Region and southern Chile in general. 3) The Lanco,_Chile was unilaterally moved from its namespace at Lanco without any discussion in 2017. Dentren | Talk 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

January 18, 2021

  • (Discuss)Down to One (Luke Bryan song)Down to One – The current "Down to One" page is a disambiguation that only lists one other title of a song that has no page. As this is the only page of a "Down to One" title, it should be moved there. Yeehaw45 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Melua (surname)Melua – Move the surname page to the base name over the current redirect to Katie Melua. Katie Melua is not known by the mononym and is not the primary topic (although as a notable name-holder the surname article might mention her more prominently). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Fifth Step (short story)The Fifth Step – Move over redirect - "The Fifth Step" is currently a redirect to an article about a television show that has an episode titled "5th Step". The short story is named "The Fifth Step" and so should take primacy. McPhail (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ZoellaZoe SuggWP:RS have been referring to her as Zoe Sugg (her birth name) for several years now, per WP:UCRN. Sugg has released five novels with said name, and this article refers to her as Sugg throughout. Additionally, she does not use the term for herself at all now - 'Zoella' has been a professional website ran by a team of employees for several years, so keeping the article title as Zoella is factually incorrect when the article is about her as a BLP, rather than her company. – DarkGlow () 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grand Duchy of MoscowGrand Principality of Moscow – Creditable source sources like Brittanica call it principality. Furthermore, the principality is the direct translation of княжество, the Russian word for duchy is герцогство; principality and duchy are not synonymous, this translation takes far too many liberties. I haven't heard any arguments about why it should be duchy. Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ercilla, ChileErcilla – Primary meaning, a breif look into what quality internet content show as Ercilla makes it clear it is the commune and town and not the writer, also in everyday speech in Chile Ercilla is a place not a writer. It is worth noting that Spanish Wikipedia have also the town and commune as the primary meaning for Ercilla. Dentren | Talk 08:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Elapsed listings


  • (Discuss)Club de Foot MontréalCF Montréal – place as common name. They won't be using the full name all the time, instead will most commonly go by CF Montréal. This rename will be consistant with club names across wikipedia and wikipedia standard naming conventions RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Biblical numerology → ? – This article is named "Biblical numerology" which seems to imply that the article's content should be limited to just the bible (and perhaps exegesis). But this seems like it could perhaps result in a slippery slope with regard to stuff only implicitly mentioned in the bible. Take the seven sacraments, for example. (It's listed as a bullet point under section "7".) As a Catholic, I would say that these are in fact "biblical". But I acknowledge that nowhere in the bible does it give a listing of the sacraments, or even say that there are exactly seven. The listing of seven (no more, no less) comes from extra-biblical tradition, not from the bible. But then where do we draw the line? Take the Holy Triduum, for example. (It's listed under section "3".) The Holy Triduum is a liturgical celebration, not something found in the bible. (The events that it's modelled after are found in the bible, but the Triduum itself is not.) So should it be listed? Then there is also the stuff about "ten fingers and ten toes", "twelve lunar months", etc. This might help to draw connections, but it's not the least bit "biblical". I am not saying these things should be removed. I do think it's perfectly appropriate (especially the stuff concerning extrabiblical tradition and liturgy). But I am just wondering if maybe the article's name should be changed to "Christian numerology" or "Significance of numbers in Christianity"? I'm opening a name change request below. 2601:49:C301:D810:60D6:3777:B8C0:7F2D (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HyoscineScopolamine – "Scopolamine" is the preferred name of the substance internationally, including in the USA, German-speaking world, French-speaking world, and Spanish-speaking world. Here is some relevant context: 'Alkaloid nomenclature was often the subject of heated and confusing debate, and a particular instance is relevant to the present discussion. "Hyoscine" - first prepared by Albert Ladenburg in 1880 - and "scopolamine" - first isolated by Ernst Schmidt from Scopola species in 1888 [...] - are synonyms, but a colourful controversy regarding their identity raged, especially in Germany, from their discovery until the early twentieth century. Both names continued to be used for many decades, the choice often seemingly dependent on the nationality of the writer, and by the mid-1920s, the name "hyoscine" had largely been abandoned except in England and associated countries [not including the USA].' (Paul Foley, "Duboisia myoporoides: The Medical Career of a Native Australian Plant", Historical Records of Australian Science vol. 17(1), p. 31-69, 2006.) Wwallacee (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Francis de Laporte de CastelnauFrançois-Louis Laporte, Comte de Castelnau – Attempting to follow guidelines at WP:NCNOB, though I'm honestly not sure about the best title to use. I originally sought for help on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Francis de Laporte de Castelnau but got no reply in nearly two weeks, so I thought it best to just WP:BOLD and rename the page anyway. The full name for this person is generally given as "François Louis Nompar de Caumont Laporte" (or is it "de Laporte"?); his original name at birth was "François-Louis Nompar de Caumont La Force", but the surname was changed to "Laporte" later on. He also used the title "Comte de Castelnau", which comes from his connections to nobility. Most online information I've found on him gives his first name as "François" not "Francis", which was apparently joined together with his second name as "François-Louis". For the most part here, I've referred to information from a Zootaxa article by Neal Evenhuis from 2012 (see here), which gives his correct birth date and original name at birth. It's worth noting that in 2010, this article was moved by LouisPhilippeCharles (who was later banned that year) from its old title "François Louis de la Porte, comte de Castelnau" to its current title. I cannot make sense of why this previous move was done, unless it was to copy the other language Wikipedias (even French WP uses the same title as the English one currently??), though in retrospect "de la" doesn't seem to be part of his full name at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Personal messagePrivate message – See section above for existing discussion regarding this move, with the main reason being WP:COMMONNAME. Looking at the sources currently on this article, only two of them use "personal message" and the majority of them refer to the topic generically as "private messages". Google Ngram Viewer[29] also shows that Private message is the most popular term as of 2019, while Personal message has been in steady decline for decades. — The Only Zac (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)OFC Pirin BlagoevgradPirin Blagoevgrad – The football club changed its name last year, when a new association was created. WP:USEENGLISH suggests transliterating the new name, but there are a few clubs named 'Pirin' in Bulgaria. English news sources use the old names OFC Pirin Blagoevgrad and OFK Pirin, as well as simply Pirin Blagoevgrad, none of them (besides non-English local sources) use the new name, which if it were to be transliterated would be FK Pirin. I believe simply using the commonly recognisable and neutral name Pirin Blagoevgrad would be sufficient, as some English sources do so. Divpatok (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mister FantasticReed Richards – This set of characters is as well known by their "street" names as by their made-up names. In particular, I would contend that even in-universe in the comics, Reed Richards is far more commonly referenced by his "real" name. Frankly, "Sue Storm" and "Johnny Storm" already sound like like "superhero" names. BD2412 T 17:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Discrimination (between things) → ? – This page was recently moved from its longstanding title Discrimination (disambiguation) to the new "Discrimination (between things)", one day after the mover posted an otherwise unreplied-to question about whether it was really a disambiguation page or not. The new title is definitely improper and not in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions, however: in a Wikipedia title, content embedded in parentheses has to be a disambiguator, and a disambiguator has to be a class noun for the type of thing the topic is ("painter", "writer", "novel", "film", "town", "athlete", etc.), but "between things" is not a class noun for a type of thing. I can respect the page mover's concern about whether this was really a "disambiguation" page or not, but it really should not have been moved without any discussion — it needs to either be moved back to Discrimination (disambiguation), or get discussed to arrive at another new title that resolves the page mover's concerns while not being this. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AkawaioAkawaio people – The page views suggest there is no primary topic. Apart from the fish genus (348 views last year), there are two topics with the name: the people (4,394 views) and the language. To get a corresponding figure for the pageviews of the language, we could start with the observation that the Akawaio language is currently treated jointly with Patamona language in a single article called Kapóng language. Considering that the two constituent topics appear to be of equal significance (the pageviews of Patamona people are roughly equal to those for Akawaio), one can infer that around half of the 7,819 views of that article could be accounted for by the Akawaio language. This means a split of 51% – 45% – 4%, which clearly indicates absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Emigration of Jews from RomaniaJewish emigration from Romania – I've actually made this move request to ask the opinion of other editors as I am not sure what the title of this article should be. I've thought of something like "Exodus of Jews from Romania", but it seems that most Jews "voluntarily" went to Israel, so I don't think it fits. I am also wondering, should I use a title of the type "Jewish something..." or "something of Jews..."? Another option is "Aliyah of Jews from Romania" or just "Aliyah from Romania". I thought of using a title that would be universal in all articles of this kind, but there is no common format between them. What should I do? Super Ψ Dro 16:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ToghrulWang Khan – Per this Ngram, Wang Khan appears to be the common name. All of the quotations taken from primary sources and used in this article also refer to him as Wang, not Toghrul. Since the previous discussion did not have many participants, I decided to bring it up again to get a better consensus for the article's name. Keivan.fTalk 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck 06:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)El Dorado RumDemerara Distillers – As it stands, (even after my edits) this article reeks of promotion. I think a page move to 'Demerara Distillers', leaving the 'El Dorado Rum' as a redirect, would be appropriate and help the article expand in a more productive manner. However, the brand is international, thus familiar to the wider world. WP:COMMONNAME, easily recognized concept, etc. The parent company is less renown, but in terms of Guyana, it is one of the mere handful of publicly traded companies in the country and has a major economic presence. This Stabroek article should give a good idea what I'm talking about. Estheim (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Price tag policyPrice tag attack – Price tag attacks are violent attacks carried out by Jewish extremists against Palestinians or Palestinian property. It's not about any "policy" per se. "price tag attack" is the WP:COMMONNAME with 163k hits vs. 86k hits for "price tag policy". ImTheIP (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Tale of the Princess KaguyaThe Tale of the Princess Kaguya (film) – As of October 2020, the article gets roughly 25% more page-views than that of the 1,100-year-old literary work from which it is adapted, which is far less than the requirement to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page-views alone. It is fairly well-established Wikipedia practice to fully disambiguate titles rather than looking for "natural" disambiguation by trying to establish whether one work is more widely called by one name and the other by another name when both are widely referred to be each other's name, so the current situation is not really tenable. (Strictly speaking, The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter is the name of a specific literary work, and the folk-tale/legend that is retold in said work, but also in several other pre-modern texts, is more widely referred to as either "Princess Kaguya" or "The Tale of Princess Kaguya", and this latter story is the basis for a number of modern retellings. English Wikipedia currently, clumsily and partly the fault of yours truly, lumps the two together in a single article.) Moreover, the previous RM shows that even back in 2013 when the film was actively making news, even those who advocated for the then-unofficial English release title did not consider this film to be the primary topic of that title. The current title is the result several clumsy, undiscussed moves that went against the consensus of the previous RM -- not only against the majority opinion and close statement, but even against the minority opinion.[30][31][32][33] That said, other films based on the story such as Princess from the Moon and Queen Millennia#Animated film are nowhere near as well-known outside Japan as this one, and seem to be rarely if ever called The Tale of Princess Kaguya in English-language sources, so there is probably no need to disambiguate from this title from them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BD2412 T 03:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck 09:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests


  1. ^ T.J. Sullivan, (2015) "Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification", Series: Texts in Applied Mathematics ', Springer
  2. ^ "Chinese firm to finish 20 commercial towers in Egypt by 2022 - News - GCR".
  3. ^ "New capital's iconic tower in Egypt reaches its 53rd floor".
  4. ^ "First Tower in Egypt's New Capital District Near Cairo Complete".
  5. ^ "First tower complete for Egypt's new capital - News - GCR".
  6. ^ "New Administrative Capital's Iconic Tower to be highest in Africa at 400 meters". Egypt Independent. 2020-11-06.

See also