Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

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

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

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

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

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 request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a move discussion to determine whether or not the 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 not been discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title of the page that expresses any objection to the 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 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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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 11 November 2018" 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.

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).

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 11 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 11 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 11 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018‎ (UTC)

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
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 11 November 2018

– why Example (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move |new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 11 November 2018

– why Example (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Commenting in a requested move

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

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

Closing instructions

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

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 to notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}} or {{Mdn}}. Applicable WikiProjects can often be determined by means of the banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request.

Current discussions

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. 49 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

November 11, 2018

  • (Discuss)Miami Airport StationMiami Intermodal Center – Miami Airport Station is one of the two main components of the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) (the other being the rental car center), and the article covers both. Also, the facility is primarily referred to as MIC on the official website. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Skins (North American TV series)Skins (U.S. TV series) – Article was moved in Dec. 2015 by Necrothesp based on "talk page discussion", but none of that dealt specifically with the article titling itself. The infobox still has "United States" as the "country of origin, not "United States" and "Canada". So this needs to be fully discussed – the current title may be correctly disambiguated, or it may not be, but it needs a wider discussion. Note that, for the purposes of things like the "country of origin" (and, thus, the "by country" disambiguation), who supplies the bulk of the $$$$ for the production is what determines it, not where it was filmed, or even what nationality the cast and crew predominantly were (e.g. see Smallville, as just one of many such examples...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Raquel DiazShaul Guerrero – Not a lot of people know her by her WWE ring name, but everyone knows her by her real name (if nothing else, because of her family and especially her father), and she has created somewhat of her own brand with her own name, both in wrestling and in burlesque, as well as other media. Thoughts? Jgera5 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Bridge School, IpswichThe Bridge School – Does this need disambiguation, it looks like the school in California, though it does seem to be refereed to with "the", that doesn't look to be part of the name, a hatnote already exists, though since there is also Bridge School (Michigan), which indicated it also is refereed to like that, there should probably just be a hatnote to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Science DailyScienceDaily – The publication's actual title is ScienceDaily, including in plain text; it isn't just graphical logo stylization. See, e.g., three occurrences of "ScienceDaily" and zero of "Science Daily" in the legal boilerplate at the bottom of its homepage.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mercedes MasohnMercedes Mason – The previous move didn't go through because I guess it was too recent at the time to tell, but "Mason" is quite clearly the WP:COMMONNAME now. All her recent credits (Fear the Walking Dead, The Rookie) spell the name "Mason", as do RS [6], [7], [8] with countless other examples. Also still being used by the actress on social media, for what it's worth. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jaggi VasudevSadhguru – Article has recently been boldly moved because Sadhguru is supposedly a title rather than a name. However, nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev" so Sadhguru serves apparently as the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10, 2018

  • (Discuss)B-amylaseΒ-amylase – The enzyme's name is beta-amylase[9] not b-amylase. This can be written more pleasantly β-amylase which is my suggested title; β-amylase is currently a redirect to amylase but should not be. To the best of my knowledge and the source given, b-amylase is just wrong, although is probably a good redirect. User:GKFXtalk 20:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yeni Mosque, MytileneNew Mosque, Mytilene – This article has been moved 8 times since July 2014.[10] Yeni Cami, Mytilene --> Yeni Mosque, Mytilene --> New Mosque, Mytilene --> Yeni Mosque, Mytilene --> New Mosque, Mytilene --> Yeni Mosque, Mytilene --> New Mosque (Mytilene) --> Yeni Mosque, Mytilene. I deleted the redirect Yeni Mosque, Mytilene[11]. It was moved from New Mosque, Mytilene back to Yeni Mosque, Mytilene as I was preparing this request for posting. Google news search: "Yeni Mosque" 45 results [12] "New Mosque Mytilene" 0 results [13] Yeni Mosque is a dab page and shows other example article names containing Yeni Mosque. I think it will help if there is a consensus on the name of this article to help put an end to these moves. I listed New Mosque, Mytilene in this request only because that is where it previously was. Yeni Mosque, Mytilene appears to be the appropriate name as against all other names listed above, so I oppose the move as to all other possible new names (e.g., the article should be named Yeni Mosque, Mytilene). Jreferee (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Big Brother Angola (season 1)Big Brother: Tesouro – The main reason for this move stems from the article Big Brother Angola & Mozambique doesn't confirm to any current naming convention guidelines. Because each season has a subtitle I'm proposing moving these articles to the names above using the Survivor example from WP:NCTV. Here is my reasoning for this. Upon researching this article in depth it is in fact the third season of the series Big Brother Angola. I found a press release from the broadcaster DStv (in Portuguese) that called the third season Big Brother Angola e Moçambique during pre-production because of the decision to allow people of both Angola and Mozambique to apply to be contestants on this season. At the bottom of the press release in the section titled "About Big Brother Angola Mozambique" ("Sobre o Big Brother Angola Moçambique" in Portuguese) the broadcaster explains Angolan-only seasons are in fact considered seasons one and two. The press also considers this to be the third season of Big Brother Angola as well.[14][15][16]. Once Big Brother Angola & Mozambique officially started airing the name was changed to Big Brother Xtremo. This can been seen in the logo on the article and on the official Twitter account. Also in an article about why the Nigerian series was being filmed in South Africa the name of this season was confirmed as Big Brother Xtremo by MultiChoice which is owned by DStv.[17] (This is the only English language source I could find.) Now for the first two seasons the reason I omitted "Angola" from their name as part of this move request is in the same press release from DStv about the third season when they mentioned the second season they referred to it simply as Big Brother Duplo Impacto without "Angola" as part of the name. For this reason is why I'm proposing moving the first two seasons to match the proposed name for the third season since DStv dropped "Angola" from the name of the second season in their 2016 press release. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Marina and the DiamondsMarina Diamandis – Though it had been added as gossip by previous users, it's now confirmed that she has changed her professional name to just Marina. See: Billboard: "The single, which features Welsh songstress Marina (formerly Marina and the Diamonds)", Nylon: "Oh, and she's just "Marina" now, no Diamonds". Fader: "a collaboration with Marina Diamandis and Luis Fonsi. The track, Marina's second collab with the Cambridge band, is her first as simply Marina since nixing "the Diamonds." Personal twitter: "Marina" as username, "marinadiamandis" as handle. Not sure the page should be renamed "Marina (singer)", it already uses "Diamandis" for all subsequent uses, probably because her old performing name was strange to use as a singular pronoun. It keeps some continuity with the past to keep it that way. F, root (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Uzlovoy ModulePrichal (ISS module) – Actually, Uzlovoy Module is not a name, it is a description (nodal module). The name of this module is Prichal (Berth), which is used by numerous Russian sources. Maybe there are more appropriate variants (like Nodal module Prichal for example, as in ru.wikipedia.org), but the main point is to change the name from Uzlovoy to Prichal. Any comments and propositions are welcomed; pinging prior authors @WDGraham, Penyulap, Monareal, Op47, Jarrod Baniqued, Nickst, and Calibrator:. Igor Krein (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. KCVelaga (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Simulation theory of mindSimulation theory – The primary topic for the term "simulation theory" is the theory of mind(-reading) or "empathy". It is the only result in the top 10 at Google Books other than false positives (i.e., "Simulation: Theory..."). Same result at Google Scholar.
    The short title is preferable because all the obvious forms of natural disambiguation ("of mind", "of mind-reading", "of empathy") are potentially misleading to the average reader. The counterpart to simulation theory is at theory-theory.
    Currently, both the proposed title and Simulation Theory redirect to simulation hypothesis and there is a proposal at Talk:Simulation Theory (album) to move that article to the main upper-case title. I think the upper-case title should redirect here and hatnotes can send readers to the album and the "hypothesis". Srnec (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 9, 2018

  • (Discuss)Avel EnukidzeAvel Yenukidze – There is an inconsistency in the way Wikipedia transliterates names beginnign with the Cyrillic letter 'e'. For instance, there are entries for: Boris Yeltsin, Alexei Yepishev, Andrey Yeryomenko, Vasyl Yermylov, Yefim Yevdokimov, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Nikolai Yezhov and many more. Enukidze if the only entry I kind find where that same letter is transliterated at the beginning of a surname as E rather than Ye (although it is quite common for the forename Evgeny to omit the Y) I think we should use the 'Ye' for surnames because: 1) it already appears to be the more common form used on Wikipedia 2) it's the form used by all the most commonly read English language Russian historians, such as Simon Sebag Montefiore, Orlando Figes, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Robert Conquest, Isaac Deutscher etc. The 'E' format is more often used by academics who are not writing for the popular market. 3) It's a better guide to pronuniciation, and differentiates the cyrillic 'E' from 'Э', as in Eisenstein or Ehrenburg. 4) The best known name in this list is Boris Yeltsin, which is never seen spelt as 'Eltsin', so far as I know. Wizlon, Don (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Seraphim System (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Big Run, Jefferson County, PennsylvaniaBig Run, Pennsylvania – Move over existing unpopulated disambiguation page. Standard naming convention for US place name. Dab page lists two other "Big Run"s in Pennsylvania (without articles), one of which only has seven structures, and the other of which only has 30. The incorporated borough of Big Run in Jefferson County is clearly the primary topic. Ken Gallager (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mawa clawed frogXenopus boumbaensis – Reliable sources use the scientific name as the primary name. Also the vernacular name is recognized quite often in reliable sources, but much of the apparently high visibility of the vernacular name in the Internet comes from sites that clone Wikipedia content. Micromesistius (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pencarrow HousePencarrow – I moved this page earlier today to make room for a new disambiguation page. As I stated in the item above, this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page view analysis. Note that this link covers roughly two months worth of data up until 29 October (the last day where "Pencarrow" referred to the house. Note also that "Pencarrow Heads" was a redirect until yesterday that got some daily views, too; this is an article as of earlier today. I am aware that there is a further Pencarrow Heads in Cornwall (no idea whether it's well-known). Either way, the analysis as is has "Pencarrow" at 10 of a total of 23 views of all the Pencarrows. I thought that all this is rather uncontroversial and hence I moved the article without discussion but User:DuncanHill does not concur. I shall therefore put this case to the community on behalf of DuncanHill so that the community can weigh in. Schwede66 09:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)United Soccer LeaguesUnited Soccer League – This is what the organization has been called for a few years now. They've never "officially" rebranded, but it was implied when USL PRO rebranded to USL in 2015. If you look at archives of uslsoccer.com from before vs after February 10, 2015 (the USL PRO-->USL rebrand date). Before that date, the site's primary purpose used to be for all of the United Soccer Leagues. After that date, it was primarily for just the professional USL league, but doubled as the organizing body's site. With the 2018 rebrand, it's become more explicit. They now have a logo that reads "United Soccer League" which is separate from USL Championship's logos, and is labeled in their brand guidelines as "The United Soccer League" or "USL Corporate". In general, I don't think the name "United Soccer Leagues" has been used in any primary or secondary sources for a little while now. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 8, 2018

  • (Discuss)Al-Salam Stadium (Cairo)Al Salam Stadium – This stadium is the only one with that name on Wikipedia, so there is no need to have the location included in the title. There is another stadium in Israel called HaShalom Stadium, which means Al Salam Stadium in English, but If you search the internet for Al Salam Stadium, almost all of the results will be about the stadium in Egypt, so I also believe that the disambiguation page should be deleted too. Ben5218 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chris Pappas (politician)Chris Pappas – Prior to US election day, Chris Pappas the politician was a state-level officeholder in one of the country's smallest states, and thus was not really prominent enough to get deemed as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this page title — however, as of Tuesday he is now a representative-elect to the United States Congress, meaning his level of notability has nationalized. Of the three other entries on the dab page, two are fictional characters (one of whom has a standalone article while the other just has a redirect to a character list), and the last is a courtesy link to a person who's virtually always referred to in reliable sources as Christopher, never as just Chris — so the only really relevant primary topic comparison to the politician is the Neighbours character, and I believe that a national congressperson is important enough to claim primary topic rights over a fictional character. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lawrence WardLawrence M. Ward – Change the title to reflect the correct name and to enable the re-naming of Lawrence Ward (Serjeant at Arms) to Lawrence Ward, therefore avoiding conflicting names. Do not sign this. Bardsworthey (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pizza MargheritaMargherita pizza – English grammar, put "Margherita" first, instead of second as in Romance languages like Italian. Same as Hawaiian pizza, cheese pizza, pepperoni pizza, deluxe pizza, meat-lovers pizza, etc. -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Statue of Harriet Tubman (DeDecker)Statue of Harriet Tubman – Probably (as far as I know) we don't have other statues of Harriet Tubman in Wikipedia, so the disambiguation by artist is unnecessary. I've moved it to the current name after doing the merge suggested above, since the title with "(DeDecker)" was suggested and was available. I don't have strong feelings about whether to stick with unnecessary disambiguation or move back to the base name, which will take a page-mover's help. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DivingDiving (sport) – This is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "diving". It gets only a fraction of the article traffic.[22] Underwater diving - better known as just "diving" - is a similarly important use, and Freediving, a subset of underwater diving, receives more page views than the sport. That suggests that substantial numbers of readers looking for underwater diving are coming here by mistake. Diving should redirect to the dab page, or become its own dab page. Cúchullain t/c 18:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)WLTPWLTP (AM) – To point WLTP to worldwide harmonized light vehicles test procedure as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over the radio station, given page views [23] and usage in WP:RS [24][25]. A disambiguation page at WLTP is also fine by me, if editors create pages referring to other significant usages of this acronym during the course of this move discussion. Regarding the proposed disambiguator, see WP:NCBC#North America ("For stations which do not have a suffix, if disambiguation is necessary (because the official call sign conflicts with an airport code or acronym), place the type of service in parentheses"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 7, 2018

  • (Discuss)Pryor Mountain MustangPryor Mountain mustang – Per MOS:LIFE, and per WP:CONSISTENCY with lower-case treatment of "mustang" at the main Mustang horse article, and of "horse" and "pony" in all names of horse/pony varieties other than the few standardized breeds which include the word "Horse" or "Pony" in the breed's formal name (e.g. American Quarter Horse). WP does not capitalize (aside from included proper names) any animal types, populations, or other groupings, with the sole (sometimes controversial, and uncodified) exception of standardized breeds. Mustang groups (feral horse populations in particular areas), broad classifications of horses as being of Spanish ancestry, and a grouping of unrelated ponies by what activity they're intended for or what overall stature they have, clearly do not qualify. None of these are breeds themselves. There are probably more such articles that need moving. One edge case is a separate RM, at Talk:Kiger Mustang. It's a feral population like the other mustang groups (thus "Kiger mustang"), but there is a breed-establishment effort under way from stock taken from this herd, under a different name, Kiger Musteño. Spanish Mustang is not included in either RM, because that is an actual standardized breed, named for the feral Colonial Spanish horse-descended mustangs which were part of its foundation stock. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 07:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ReptiliansReptilian humanoid – Current name is confusing; see discussion at the bottom of [31]. The animals in class Reptilia are reptilians; surely they're more significant than a concept that appears only in fantasy, science fiction, ufology, and conspiracy theories? Given the nature of the Internet, I don't think we can trust Google results here, since topics appearing in fantasy etc. are likely to get lots of hits on forums, personal websites, etc. Instead, I ran searches on JSTOR (from home, so it's not searching what my institution has access to) for reptilian and reptilians. Data: Reptilians by subject, out of 308 total: *Biological Sciences: 87 *Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 42 *Film Studies: 1 *Folklore: 0 *General Science: 33 *Language & Literature: 11 *Performing Arts: 0 *Sociology: 13 *Zoology: 27 Reptilian by subject, out of 23,312 total: *Biological Sciences: 7,565 *Ecology & Evolutionary Biology: 2,339 *Film Studies: 115 *Folklore: 29 *General Science: 1,989 *Language & Literature: 1,318 *Performing Arts: 107 *Sociology: 231 *Zoology: 3,658 Note that these searches found 172 and 3,658 documents respectively, so many or most results have been assigned multiple subjects. Remember that JSTOR is more of a social sciences/humanities resource than a hard-sciences resource; if every item in JSTOR used these two terms, JSTOR would return fewer hard sciences results merely because of its scope. Therefore, when the hard-sciences usage vastly outnumbers the disciplines that might be studying this article's subject, it's clear that the animals are more significant than reptilian humanoids. [I expect that a large share of the Language and Literature people, in particular, are studying something other than this article's subject; among the top results are items on the Divine Comedy, Quetzalcoatl, bird evolution (how did that get into literature?), wyverns, alligators, and an Edgar Allen Poe poem.] Whether they're the primary topic I don't know, and I'm not arguing for moving the disambiguation page, but as they and reptilian humanoids are the only items on the disambiguation page that could reasonably get pluralized, it seems best to me that we move this article and make its title a redirect to Reptile. Final note, if we move this article, I'm not clear the best place; I got the proposed title from List of reptilian humanoids, but if you can propose a better title, that's great. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.usernamekiran(talk) 18:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kiger MustangKiger mustang – Per MOS:LIFE. WP does not capitalize any general animal type, population, or other grouping, with the (sometimes controversial and still uncodified) single exception of the names of standardized breeds. "Kiger mustang" is not one; it's just a term for a population of feral horses in a particular area. A particular standardized-breed effort has started with some specific horses from this population, and the purebred result is called Kiger Musteño, also covered in this article. That qualifies for capitalization, but is not the primary topic of the article, and not independently notable. After the move, the article text should be adjusted to use "Kiger mustang" throughout, like the main Mustang horse article and "mustang" in its text. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 04:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Double-nosed Andean tiger houndDouble-nosed AndeanWP:CONCISE. There's also a WP:CONSISTENCY problem here. WP's breed article naming pattern is "[Breed Name] [optional type/species]" with the lowercase part only present as a natural disambiguator when necessary. The two sources on this are in conflict, giving "Double-nosed Andean tiger hound" (Breed named followed by lower-case breed type/class), and "Double-nosed Andean Tiger Hound" (entire phrase implied to be a breed name). So, go with the short version by default since it is not ambiguous. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 01:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

November 6, 2018

  • (Discuss)8th Street / St. Mark's Place8th Street and St. Mark's Place – Both articles are about two different names given to different parts of the same straight road (the street names change at some point on the route of each respective artery). However, the slash with a space looks awkward, and MOS:SLASH doesn't recommend having spaces around the slash. I wanted to move these two pages so that there are no spaces around the slash. However, I reverted these moves after Beyond My Ken wrote on my talk page, The space on either side of the virgule helps to show that it is not an actual combined name, but two names on the same article. I'm proposing these titles as a compromise because it treats the two names separately. epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Oidheadh chloinne LirChildren of Lir – Request move back to the original name per WP:COMMON_NAME. The myth is commonly known as the Children of Lir rather than by its Irish language title. Google results - 137k for Children of Lir vs. 8k for Oidheadh chloinne Lir. Spleodrach (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pedology (study of children)Paedology – Per WP:CONCISE, WP:DAB, WP:ATDAB, WP:UCRN. Use a common name in lieu of parenthetical disambiguation. And this isn't even a proper parenthetical DAB anyway: it's a synonym/definition, not a qualifier. It also it reads like broken English. Worse yet, it's ambiguous in and of itself (how is that a disambiguation?!), seeming to imply a study children not the study of them. It thus comes across as the title of a published work, not the name of a field of study. Oh, and the paed- spelling cannot apply the pedology, the study of soils (it's a different ped- root). So, the move satisfies WP:SMALLDETAILS, though DAB hatnotes will be needed. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 09:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

November 5, 2018

  • (Discuss)Rum and CokeCuba libre – A move discussion was held on this talk page, and the consensus was to leave it at "Cuba libre" instead of moving it to "Rum and Coke". The page was later moved, against consensus, without further discussion. It should be moved back to "Cuba libre" unless and until a new consensus is reached that it should be moved. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)XXX (film series)xXx (film series) – This film series is stylized as xXx. The articles connected with the film series are inconsistent in whether or not they use xXx or XXX. While the above article titles use XXX, they use xXx within the article body. Furthermore, xXx: Return of Xander Cage uses this style. There is a sequel in the works, and while this does not warrant an article yet, the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have used xXx when discussing the franchise. Furthermore, "XXX" is commonly associated with pornography, so having xXx for these non-pornographic films would be a clearer distinction. (As an example of the confusion, XXX (film series) is unusually high on article traffic statistics for this reason.) And lastly, having all these articles use xXx would be WP:CONSISTENT. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Big AngBig Ang (TV series) – "Big Ang" more commonly refers to Angela Raiola herself, and not the one-season spin-off that was named after her; "Big Ang" should redirect to the article about the person and the show should be distinguished by parenthetical. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Júlio César (footballer, born November 1978)Julio César Santos Correia – As seen here, there is no other Júlio César article with "(footballer, born <month> 1978)" in their title, so it doesn't make sense to have the month in this article's parenthetical. We could move it to "Júlio César (footballer, born 1978)"; however, that would be confusing as there are three other Júlio Césars born in 1978: Júlio César Martins, Julio César Tobar, Julio César Suazo. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that this Júlio César is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Júlio Césars born in 1978, but I don't think he is highly more likely than the other three (particular Julio César Suazo, who played internationally for Honduras). Thus, I propose we disambiguate from the others by simply moving it to his full name, Julio César Santos Correia. There are already a number of articles which link to the very similarly-named redirect Júlio César Santos Correa (note the accent on the U — it looks like most sources on this article have no accent on the U, so that's probably what we should go with). IagoQnsi (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ulmus Boissieri'Ulmus boissieri – Earlier treatment as a cultivar is unsubstantiated, and original species taxon should be restored until such time as DNA analysis can prove otherwise. Four authorities cited in the article all maintain Ulmus boissieri as does IPNI; Richens sank the tree as Ulmus minor, though almost certainly never saw the tree or foliage specimen. Attempt to change title using Move was only partially successful, with bogus apostrophe appearing, and reversion to upper case initial B in boissieri. Stavast22 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Stavast22 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 13:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Potter's fieldPaupers' grave – I think that enough time has elapsed since the last WP:RM (Requested move 7 March 2018, which I recommend to anyone posting in this new discussion; there are also relevant remarks in 'US' expression, above) to reopen this issue. The meaning of 'potter's field' as 'a burial place for the poor or the unknown' may nowadays be exclusively US. It is certainly unknown in UK, where – if it is understood at all, and it wouldn't be to people of many faiths – it would be taken as a Biblical reference. See my remarks in the discussion of 7 March 2018. (I had almost forgotten that earlier discussion. I am posting now because User:DPL bot had just alerted me to a bad link to Potter's Field (a redirect to a DAB page) in Homewood Memorial Gardens, Homewood, Illinois, which I was able to repair.) (If my suggested move is accepted, some consequential edits will be needed, probably both to articles and to redirects. I point the closer to WP:FIXDABLINKS, which IMO puts an unnecessary burden on RM closers. I suggest that closer {{ping}} all !support voters (including me) to help with the cleanup.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 11:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

November 4, 2018

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Caramel shortbreadCaramel slice – Caramel slice is the primary name used for this sweet in Australia. This is how it has been written in many core texts such as the early Women's Weekly recipe books. In popular culture, when it is sold at Australian bakeries, it is called Caramel slice, regardless of whether it has a shortbread base. SunnyBoi (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss)Jack Short → ? – I'm pretty sure there is no primary topic. However I have no idea what disambiguator this article should have, hence the RM. I suspect the reason why this is still primary is because nobody else could think of one either. Xezbeth (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yale romanization of Mandarin → ? – An uncontroversial move to Yale romanization of Standard Chinese was contested. *Ambiguity of the old name Instead of fixing the wp:easter egg ( [[Standard Chinese|Mandarin]]) the contester change the link in lede to mandarin (disambiguation), which should also be avoided. The current naming convention was Yale romanization + language, to match the sister articles of Cantonese language and Korean language. The contester also removed the ref[2] for the lede. The Yale romanization for Chinese is for Beijing dialect only. Which Beijing dialect was a de facto phonological basis of Mandarin (late imperial lingua franca) (or may be vice versa) as well as became the de jure standard of Standard Chinese, but as mandarin currently redirect to mandarin (disambiguation), it can also means wiki article Mandarin Chinese (despite Mandarin Chinese may also means Standard Chinese as second meaning), which is a larger language family that included Sichuanese dialects and Nanjing dialect, which basically a political/academic war on language or dialect based on mutually intelligible criterion. Also, mandarin may means Taiwanese Mandarin, which according to the wiki article, "mostly mutually intelligible" with Standard Chinese, so it may still able to use the Yale Romanization, or may be not. To sum up, instead of using ambiguous suffix "mandarin", a more precise suffix should be decided , either Standard Chinese, Chinese or Beijing dialect. *Source I don't know how use use Ngram properly, so try to list academic journals one by one from my uni library login search. :*Yale Romanization of Chinese (with modern Chinese context) :::"Zentral- und Ostasien". Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (bookreview). Berlin. 67 (7): 393–407. 1972. ISSN 0030-5383. The Yale Institute of Far Eastern Languages publishes a series of handbooks of Modern Chinese......The review is inclined to admit that the Yale Romanization of Chinese is certainly one of the most convenient for the American students...... ::::which was a review of: ::::Huang, Parker Po-fei; Chang, Richard I. Feng; Chao, Howard H.; Hsia, Linda T.; Wang, Yen-chan (1967). Twenty Lectures on Chinese Culture: an Intermediary Chinese Textbook. Yale University. (physical item, not accessed, not accessed by myself) ::::Huang, Parker Po-fei; Chang, Richard I. Feng; Chao, Howard H.; Hsia, Linda T.; Wang, Yen-chan (1967). Twenty Lectures on Chinese Culture: Exercise Book. Yale University. (physical item, not accessed, not accessed by myself) :*Yale romanization with modern/Standard Chinese context (China = People's Republic of China context) :::Hsu, Vivian (1984). "[no title]". The Journal of Asian Studies (book review). 43 (3): 537. The material in this text is given in full characters, English translation, simplified characters, pinyin, and Yale romanization......Full characters and Yale romanization, which are of no use in China, might be dispensed with... ::::which was a review of Speaking Chinese in China, Yale University Press 1983. (physical item, not accessed by myself) :*Yale system with (standard) Chinese context ::: Written at Tokyo. "Chinese have last word". The Guardian. London. Associated Press. 22 November 1978. ...Hsinhua — or — Cinrua said, however, traditional spellings of certain historical places or people need not be changed. or could use the new spelling system with the traditional spelling in parenthesis. This presumably would be applied to places like Peking — Beijing in the new system and Yale system and Peiching in the Wade-Giles... :::Chou, Kuo-ping (1955). "[no title]". The Far Eastern Quarterly (book review). 14 (4): 583. The "Textes Gardues" are divided into 12 lessons, of which characters are supplied with tone marks (in the Yale system)......Thus, although every sentence is good standard Chinese, it is hard to imagine any class being able to learn so many grammatical constructions and different uses of the words at once... ::::which was a review of Matériaux pour l'enseignement élémentaire du chinois, écriture, transcription, langue parlée nationale 1953 (physical item, not accessed by myself) ::To sum up, those academic source just use Chinese (plus usage of standard Chinese, Modern Chinese), instead of the slang mandarian. May be the rationale in those source was likes, Italian language may just means Standard Italian instead of others. (Chinese verse full term [de facto/de jure] standard Chinese / modern Chinese / any thing oppose to Middle Chinese, other lesser known Chinese dialects). Matthew hk (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Huang Xing; Xu Feng. "The Romanization of Chinese Language" (PDF). Review of Asian and Pacific Studies. Tokyo: Seikei University (41): 102–103.

See also

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. This is also often done (without an additional "Support" intro) to provide additional detail, such as sources, that would be unwieldy in the nomination statement (remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list at this requested moves page).
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are often relisted up to three times or almost a month.