Wikipedia:Requested moves

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article and you want your draft article published, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.

  • 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 ~~~~.
  • 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

Shortcut

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

  • there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);
  • 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 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

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 18 October 2019" and sign the post for you.

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

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 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.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request is made for a page that is not the subject page of the talk page on which the request must be made. An example would be to make a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources|new1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}
and generally:
{{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
| 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.}}

See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

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.

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 18 October 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (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 18 October 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (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 18 October 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019‎ (UTC)

Survey
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.
Discussion
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 18 October 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (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 18 October 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

Shortcut

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 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 by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}} or {{Mdn}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  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

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 26 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

October 18, 2019

October 17, 2019

  • (Discuss) – The Jackson 5 → The Jacksons – It should be The Jacksons because that's what they're known now. Last time they were known as The Jackson 5 was in 1976 before Jermaine left the group. They also do concerts and tour now as The Jacksons. The last studio album they released was under "The Jacksons" name aka 2300 Jackson Street. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Plasma globe → Plasma ball – Ball has about 887,000 Google results compared with only 197,000 for the current title. Plasma lamp only gets 162,000 results but is used in the article's 1st ref but note that Plasma lamp is a separate article which appears to be broader anyway. "Plasma ball" is used in both of the last refs and the others either don't use the terms at all or can't be accessed, Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have an article on this topic so there's no guidance there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Spring pendulum → Elastic pendulum – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the physics and mathematics literature primarily uses elastic pendulum for this system (cf. 1, 2, 3, etc.), and spring pendulum is also used for the more simple system without rotation, a vertical simple harmonic oscillator subject to constant gravity. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Raúl (footballer) → Raúl González – Reasons: # Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation where possible (WP:NCDAB, WP:NCPDAB). # Raúl González (sometimes with Blanco) is in common usage by English language sources for disambiguation ([1] [2] [3]). # Article is already the primary topic for Raúl González, which is currently a redirect. # There are several other footballers called Raúl (including Raúl Jiménez, who also just has Raúl on his shirt), so the current title is not unambiguous. Wikipedia policies have no concept of a "primary disambiguated topic": once parantheses are used the name should be completely unambiguous, even though this article is probably the primary topic among footballers called Raúl. Charlie A. (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Captain Spaulding → Captain Spaulding (Animal Crackers) –
    The ol' reversal. Last month, I moved the page to "Captain Spaulding (Animal Crackers), and I noticed that this change was recently undone (on a side note, I'd like to point out that this reversion probably should not have been listed as "uncontroversial", per WP:RM#CM). I have to disagree with the consensus reached by the November discussion. I disagree with Roman Spinner's claim that the Groucho character is "clearly" the primary topic, and I invite readers of this discussion to review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Though Groucho's Spaulding came first, and was the inspiration for the Rob Zombie character's name, the latter character is "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". In fact, when I searched for "Captain Spaulding" on Google, Groucho's Spaulding didn't show up until the fifth page of results (not including the Wikipedia article in question). Results for the Zombie character are also significantly more prevalent when searching for "Captain Spaulding" on Bing, Yahoo, and YouTube. Again, Groucho's Spaulding came first, and Zombie's Spaulding owes his name to him, but Zombie's Spaulding nonetheless has much more coverage and popularity than Groucho's. –Matthew - (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Neville (wrestler) → Pac (wrestler) – He is now part of the first major wrestling promotion in 20 years to have both a weekly TV show and the financials to go toe-to-toe with WWE. He has not wrestled under the name Neville in over a year, and AEW should easily satisfy the notability requirements that were asked for by commenters on the previous move request; ROH or Impact were cited a few times, and considering AEW is on a major television network and far outreaches both these shows in viewership, that bar should be easily cleared. ThePaSch (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Accius → Accius (Latin poet) – Per pageviews and comparison with other topics, there is no primary topic for the term "Accius". If any topic may have a possibility of having the primary topic claim per page views and third party searches, it would be Lucius Accius, but at the present time, I do not see enough evidence for that subject/article to the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for this term. (Also, I chose "Accius (Latin poet)" for the new title since "poet" is ambiguous [Lucius Accius was also a poet and seems to be often referred to by his surname.]) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Matthew Ramsey (songwriter) → Matthew Ramsey – Of the entries on Matthew Ramsey, the lead singer of Old Dominion is the only one who a.) commonly goes by "Matthew" and not "Matt", and b.) has an article. The other two "Matthew Ramsey"s on the article are a z-level politician and an editor on a single film, neither of whom seem to be notable. See sources like this and this which suggest that the singer is more commonly "Matthew". Either way, a search for "Matthew Ramsey" on Google turns almost entirely for this person, suggesting that even if other notable "Matthew Ramsey"s existed who went by Matthew, the lead singer of Old Dominion is the most prominent of them. For this reason, I suggest that the singer be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the exact name "Matthew Ramsey", and the disambiguation page moved to either Matt Ramsey (since most of the entries on the list are "Matt" and not "Matthew") or Matthew Ramsey (disambiguation). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Portal:Contents → Wikipedia:Contents – By Portal:Contents read the portal, its subpages and Portal:Featured content. In fact Portal:Contents has never been considered a portal. Ignored by the policy related to portals (WP:PORTAL, WP:POG, WP:P/I and WP:WPPORT) and having a totally different layout. Portal:Contents was not initially created as a portal but moved to the portal space [4], I did not find discussions that endorsed this movement. The discussion raised is not the simple move, but whether Portal:Contents will be worked as a portal (linked in articles, treated by WP: PORTAL and the possibility of creating similar new portals).

Previous discussions *Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Redundant Portal:Contents subpages *Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 13#Redundancy between Portal:Contents subpages and portals Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • (Discuss) – Amok (dish) → Homok – Per the above sections, there seems to be consensus that the article title should follow the Thai name. It's not clear which spelling variant (Homok, Ho mok or Hor mok) is to be preferred. Paul_012 (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pixel 3a → Pixel 3A – Consistency with iPhone. For MOS:TM reasons they have always used capital letters when referring to model names like this, even if Apple officially uses lower-case for its 's' models (such as iPhone 6s). ViperSnake151  Talk  19:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Yasin → Yasin (name) – The name doesn't appear to be a clear primary topic with respect to usage (it receives just a little over half of the total pageviews [6]), and I see no reason to consider it as having greater long-term significance than the region. Also, most of the incoming links are not intended for the name. The picture gets a bit complicated, however, by the surah of the Quran Ya-Sin: if included in the comparisons it turns out to receive four times as many views as all other articles combines, but I find enough justification in not treating it as the new primary topic in the apparently greater prominence of its hyphenated form. – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Jpegmafia → JPEGMafia – The current title of this article is a made up name, since his name is never given as Jpegmafia, and Jpeg is like JPEG. What is better, JPEGMafia or JPEGMAFIA? I think JPEGMafia at least adhered to MOS:CAMELCASE, but also, it's a made up form too. JPEGMAFIA is what he is called in reliable sources, but there's no encyclopedia reason to capitalize MAFIA. But I prefer either over Jpegmafia. --Quiz shows 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Philips CD-i → CD-i – CD-i was an open format from both Philips and Sony. "Philips CD-i" is misleading and wrong. I have already given reasons above that made me reconstruct the page. The other Wikipedia pages for this topic like German Spanish French Japanese correctly have this page named "CD-i" and now English should too. Данасул (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Let Veneto Decide → Il Veneto Decida – Leaving aside the very dubious encyclopedicity of the page, the current title is an invention of the user that created the page, ie an original research. "Il Veneto Decida" cannot be directly translated into English unless it is included in a broader sentence, so the creator of the page invented a translation ("Let Veneto Decide" means "Lascia decidere il Veneto" or "Lascia che il Veneto decida"). When it is not possible to translate a name and there are no sources on an English translation, the original name should be used. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Range imaging → 3D imaging – Described in detail on article talk page. Briefly, a good and needed article that is badly mis-named. None of the sources use the current name, many many of them use the new name. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Autonomous social center → Self-managed social centre – Multiple secondary sources describe this phenomenon as ’self-managed social centres.’ The descriptor ’autonomous social centre’ is not backed up by the sources in the article or indeed in the broader relevant literature Mujinga (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2019 Prince Edward station attack → ? – The current title , 2019 Prince Edward station attack is violating WP:NPOV. May be "31 August incident" is more NPOV but it seem a direct transliteration from Chinese, thus i doubt it is the common name in English. The context of the incident, is, there are civil conflict between black shirt protesters and armed (with axe) "anti-protesters" which "anti-protesters" use axe to attack and protester gave return blow. And then police arrived and accused by media that, they indiscriminate attack the citizen in the wrong train carriage as part of their arrest (thus WP:BLPCRIME applies, it should use "suspect", "accused " wording instead of firm wording), plus accusation of killing citizen in the process. The only more widely accepted fact would be those injured were sent to hospital a few hours after the incident. Thus, "attack" wording is not appropriate, "terrorist attack" even more not appropriate, but i am not sure what they are using in English media to describe the event. Matthew hk (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ridesharing company → Ride-hailing company – While many publications report the incorrect term ridesharing, the proper term for the service described in this article is ride-hailing. The name ridesharing for this page is also misleading as there are also proper ridesharing services, where more than one passenger share the same ride. The page was moved from the less used but less ambiguous transportation network company with very limited discussion and dubious consensus. Ita140188 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Spider-Man: Far From Home → Spider-Man: Far from Home – Poster stylization is generally not considered a good reason to capitalize or not (strictly speaking, the logo stylizes the title as SPIDER-MAN: Far From HomE or perhaps SPIDER-MAN: Far FrOm HOmE anyway), so Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Titles of works should prevail. Secondary sources seem to be fairly split on whether to capitalize "from" in this case, with the review quotes on the first page of RottenTomatoes including examples like I like that "Far From Home" is trying, As a standalone movie, Far from Home is fine, Spider-Man: Far From Home is a visually incoherent, Spider-Man: Far from Home builds upon what's come before and so large that Far From Home is more, and even the aggregator's original prose (?) being split between Peter Parker returns in Spider-Man: Far From Home and Spider-Man: Far from Home stylishly sets the stage. This split is presumably due to confusion with some people following the film's logo and others following conventional writing style, and there is probably also a fair bit of "secondary" sources consciously or unconsciously mirroring the Wikipedia status quo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Woman suffrage parade of 1913 → Women's Suffrage Procession of 1913 (Washington D.C.)? – Discussions on the talk page regarding the correct name for this article appear not to have been resolved. They have revolved around whether the title should be fully capitalized, or changed to Woman Suffrage Procession or something similar, or left as it is. Additionally (and not discussed in the talk page), there was a little-remembered suffragette march that occurred that year in the UK, and which culminated in a rally of 50,000 people in Hyde Park, London (see information about the British march here), so the Washington parade may need to be renamed to reflect this. Amitchell125 16:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2019 FIA WEC 4 Hours of Silverstone → 2019 4 Hours of Silverstone – This is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the other 4 Hours of Silverstone is from the regional version of the World Endurance Championship (which this race is part of). Add on to that the article on the other 4 Hours of Silverstone doesn't even exist yet there is no reason why we should include the disambiguater of FIA WEC. As for the page that is currently at 2019 4 Hours of Silverstone, this is a disambiguation, that can reasonable be deleted with a hat note pointing towards the other race listed there being hat noted on top of this article should a consensus be reached here for the move but I should list it here for completeness.
    SSSB (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Motion Picture Association of America → Motion Picture Association – The Motion Picture Association of America is now known as the Motion Picture Association. Here are some sources for this[4] [5][6] The request also included a move for the MPA page to MPAA, to maintain the redirect to this page with its new name. However, if it is more efficient to delete the source page, then that would also make sense

References

  1. ^ "State Universities in Punjab". www.ugc.ac.in. University Grants Commission. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  2. ^ "The Maharaja Bhupinder Singh Punjab Sports University Act, 2019. (Punjab Act No. 11 of 2019)". Punjab Government.
  3. ^ "The Maharaja Bhupinder Singh Punjab Sports University Act, 2019". Punjab Gazette. 29 August 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  4. ^ "Motion Picture Association Rebrands With Unified Name And Updated Logo". Retrieved 6 October 2019.
  5. ^ "The MPAA Has Rebranded… As The MPA". Retrieved 6 October 2019.
  6. ^ "Motion Picture Association unifies global brand". Retrieved 6 October 2019.
FetalFlaw (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Twitch.tv → Twitch (service) – Alternatively "Twitch (website)" or "Twitch (platform)". When Twitch was launched in June 2011, it was called "TwitchTV" (as per the used source and timely Wayback Machine copies), and the name was simplified to just "Twitch" around July 2012, which remains the same to date. The name "Twitch.tv" was seemingly constructed from the website's domain name; it is neither the official nor a common name, thus failing the requirement for a natural disambiguation per WP:NCDAB/WP:ATDAB. The name "Twitch", however, satisfies both, making it a much more preferred article title, even if it requires the use of a parenthetical disambiguation. In past discussions, the successful RM for Amazon.com -> Amazon (company) was brought up. This is good example for an RM from an official name to a common name, even if not entirely relevant to this one: "Amazon.com" is the official name of the company, which is incorporated as "Amazon.com, Inc.", while "Amazon" is the common name displayed in the company's logo and used by pretty much all sources following the company's global expansion. The community decided that the common name far outweighed the official name, and so the move was done. Although this was brought up in that discussion, the Amazon move was to be decided upon without considering the domain-naming scheme of regional Amazon websites; Amazon.com/Amazon (company) was and is not just about the Amazon.com website for the States and its regional outlets, rather about the company Amazon.com, Inc. that operates the Amazon-branded shopping websites, develops the Kindle and Echo devices, and operates the Amazon Web Services platform. That said, for Twitch, this would not be a move from the official name to a common name, rather a move from an unofficial name constructed from the website's domain name to the only official and most common name "Twitch", which appears in pretty much every source available from after it dropped the name "TwitchTV". The latter far outweighs the prior, thus the page should be moved. Pinging past RM contributors: @Dekimasu, ViperSnake151, Red Slash, SnowFire, CookieMonster755, James Allison, Masem, Netoholic, Nightfury, Zxcvbnm, Tantamounts, BarrelProof, Wumbolo, JFG, Niridya, Davey2010, SubSeven, SportingFlyer, Jamacfarlane, and Lazz R. Lordtobi (✉) 12:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ecko Unlimited → Ecko Unltd. – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. A prior RM concluded that that the diacritic in "Eckō" should not be used, but with no clear consensus for dropping the "Unltd." in favor of "Unlimited". The short form is the one used by the company everywhere and the one found in pretty much all sources. Lordtobi (✉) 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Great Replacement → Great replacement conspiracy theory – Moving to "conspiracy theory" is more consistent with the WP:CRITERIA on: # Consistency: there is an undeniable widespread convention of identifying conspiracy theories in the titles of articles. Birtherism, Cultural marxism, White genocide conspiracy theory etc. Many of the editors who favored removing "conspiracy theory" in the previous discussion even noted that they were going against the common practice on other pages, and no one has made an argument for why we would deviate here. # Precision: This is not an article about the phenomenon of the "great replacement". We spend almost no time discussing the substance of Camus's theory. Instead, we focus on the effects of the "great replacement conspiracy theory". By the same token: we don't have an article on The faking of the moon landing, because that would invite WP:FRINGE content. Instead, we have an article exploring the cultural impact of moon landing conspiracy theories. Our article on Pizzagate conspiracy theory is not substantially about the allegations made by Pizzagate supporters. It is about their impact on the world. Nblund talk 22:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Infobox Chinese → Template:Infobox transliteration – The template is now used for a wide variety of languages and the original name of Infobox Chinese is no longer appropriate. I suggest Infobox transliteration as the new title, but there may be better options. --Trialpears (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Note: although there is agreement that the present title is unsuitable, there is no consensus as to what the new title should be. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12, 2019

October 11, 2019

  • (Discuss) – Vile vortex → Vile Vortices – Meets WP:NCPLURAL - Article is about entities that are being considered together as a group - being the 12 Vile Votices. Its comparable to the "Florida Keys". Do not sign this. Kiwipat (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dersim rebellion → Dersim Massacre – There is plenty of very strong arguments for the change made in the present talk page, but surprisingly no such arguments have been made when the time was up for renaming the page previously. Regardless of the actual outcome, the contrast reflects badly on Wikipedia's capacity to be neutral because it appears that a few organized users have successfully held an article on a controversial position. At the very least the article should be split into "Dersim Rebellion" and "Dersim Massacre" to remove the controversy. 134.147.174.80 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Austin Matelson → Luchasaurus – Right now, Matelson is not his common name. He has several ringnames, but I think, after the AEW events and Dynamite, he is best known as Luchasaurus. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ed Farhat → The Original Sheik – I made a discussion 6 years ago (I didn't remember), but just 2 people appeared. Again, it's his ringname and his common name. After The Iron Sheik, I think he is best known as The Original Sheik (better than The Sheik). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
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.

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ "Vega XB-38". www.joebaugher.com. Retrieved 2019-10-13.

See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
09:19, Friday, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=921797128"