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. A move review evaluates 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[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone may move a page without discussion if 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[edit]

Technical requests[edit]

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move[edit]

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 19 July 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[edit]

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

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 19 July 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 02:51, 19 July 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 19 July 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 02:51, 19 July 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 19 July 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018‎ (UTC)

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

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

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 19 July 2018

– why Example (talk) 02:51, 19 July 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 19 July 2018

– why Example (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[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[edit]

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


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

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 59 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

July 19, 2018[edit]

July 18, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Invest in AmericaSelectUSAMr. Guye started a discussion at RfD, but there were only two contributors there. Both felt it was really a matter for RM rather than RfD. As closer of that discussion, I am opening this requested move. I have no thoughts on the matter. ~ Amory (utc) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NelspruitMbombela – Nelspruit was renamed in 2009. Previous move requests have been denied due to Mbombela not being in common usage, but the new name is now widely used. Greenman (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LewisIsle of LewisWP:ASTONISH I cannot imagine the average person who types in "Lewis" would expect to be taken here. Unlike Harris, the name of this place is Isle of Lewis, even though is is not technically an island in its own right. Google searches for "Lewis" (almost no results for the place in Scotland even from England), "Lewis, Scotland" and "Isle of Lewis" show that it is called Isle of Lewis in a generic context. Lewis (TV series) regularly gets more than double page views. The place is clearly the primary topic over the ship named after it so the hatnote to that would remain. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Castle Rising (castle)Castle Rising CastleWP:NATURAL, most of the other non-English Wikipedia articles have it at "Castle Rising Castle" (or the language equivalent) and a Google search shows a mixture of "Castle Rising" and "Castle Rising Castle", indicating the latter is a more complete name. A move request on Commons was unopposed. Even though the castle is the original meaning, it looks like it is called "Castle Rising Castle", so it should be OK having "Castle Rising" for the village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nagano, NaganoNagano – There is nothing like WP:USPLACE for Japanese place names, so the inclusion of the prefecture is unnecessary if there is no need for disambiguation. The fact that Nagano redirects here implies that the city is the WP:PTOPIC for "Nagano". feminist (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

July 17, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Closet MonsterCloset Monster (band) – Not a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name over and above Closet Monster (film). In fact, the film's notability (winning a notable film award) is demonstrated and sourced well enough, while the band's notability is barely sourced at all, that there's a credible case to be made that the film should get the undabbed title — but I'm not going to insist on that, and instead will leave it to consensus to decide whether the plain title should be the film or a WP:TWODABS page. The only thing I'm sure of is that the band is definitely not more notable than the film. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Steady State theorySteady state model – In scientific terms, a scientific theory is an established explanation of an aspect of the natural world; this particular explanation was rejected, so it is not a scientific theory but a scientific model. Throughout this article, its name is inconsistently showed as "theory" and "model". A preliminary Web search showed many hits calling it Steady State model. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lana (wrestling)Lana (wrestler) – Last year, it was discussed this move. However, some users though it was TOOSOON. One year after, Lana has wrestled several matches, becoming a full-time wrestler, she has participated in Money in the Bank, Mixed Match Challenge, Royal Rumble... I think she is a wrestler, and "(wrestling)" is obsolete. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Edward Stopford (British Army officer)Edward Stopford (soldier) – Per WP:NCPDAB (The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in his or her own right. In most cases these nouns are standard, commonly used tags such as "(musician)" and "(politician)". Try to avoid using abbreviations or anything capitalized or containing hyphens, dashes or numbers (apart from instances where more specific guidelines specify particular exceptions). Try also to limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term.) and WP:CONCISE142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

July 16, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Parliamentary procedureLegislative Procedure – Almost no countries in the world have a parliament, but nearly every country in the world has a legislative body. "Parliamentary" procedure refers specifically to procedure of a parliament (which most countries do not have), while legislative procedure refers to the procedure of any legislative body, meaning that it is inclusive of the term "parliamentary procedure". Changing the article title would mean still referring to and being descriptive of the procedure of the few parliaments in the world, while also being descriptive of the procedure of every other legislative body. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Comma JohanneumJohannine Comma – 'Johannine Comma' is the most common English name given to this passage in recent scholarship written for a broad audience, for example: * Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament: a guide to its early history, texts, and manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 178–179. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744733.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-874473-3.  * Levine, Joseph M. (1997). "Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma". Journal of the History of Ideas. 58 (4): 573–596. doi:10.2307/3653961. ISSN 0022-5037. JSTOR 3653961.  * McDonald, Grantley (2016). Biblical criticism in early modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine comma, and Trinitarian debate. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316408964. ISBN 978-1-107-12536-0.  The Latin appellation Comma Johanneum is by no means obsolete, but tends to be used in more specialist contexts or for readers accustomed to other languages. AndrewNJ (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ingress (TV series)Ingress: The Animation – A lot of sources and Niantic use Ingress: The Animation versus Ingress for the name of the anime. It seems like an obvious way for the company to differentiate the game from the animation. There's also published media that follow this convention such as Ingress: The Niantic Project Files, Volume 1 or Ingress: Level 8. As such, the name of the article should follow the actual name unless I'm mistaken. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Adam BartonAdam Barton (footballer) – Not clearly the primary topic for the name – the fictional character, Adam Barton (Emmerdale), has far more page views (although this may decline to some extent in the future, as the character is no longer current). Should disambiguate by profession, with "Adam Barton" become a disambiguation page. Jellyman (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TsourekiÇörek – This dish originated in Central Asia and should move to its original name çörek - unlike Tzatziki (which is also a loanword) this is not a WP:COMMONAME - see the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery for discussion of the dishes historical origin Seraphim System (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Toughened glassTempered Glass – "Tempered Glass" and not "Toughened Glass" is the primary and unambigous name for this material, so the article should be named accordingly. As one example of relative popularity, there are currently 55.3 million references on Google to "tempered glass" and only 3.51 million references to "toughened glass" (over 15x more common in usage). There is currently a redirect from Tempered Glass to this article which prevents me from making the change myself, which is why I have requested an administrative change. "Toughened glass" should redirect to "tempered glass", rather than vice-versa. Turjan (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

July 15, 2018[edit]

July 14, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Proto-Indo-European religionProto-Indo-European mythology – I have two main reasons for requesting this move: # "Religion" principally concerns ritual practices and customs; whereas mythology concerns the body of stories associated with the culture. This article really concerns mythology, not religion, the only section in the entire article that actually concerns religion is the "Ritual and sacredness," which is very brief, mostly uncited, and only talks about words for ritual in PIE. The fact is that we really know nothing at all about the actual ritual practices of the Proto-Indo-Europeans because the rituals in their descendant cultures are too vastly disparate. # All the sources mainly call it "mythology" as well. For instance, the chapter on the subject in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006) by J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams is titled "Comparative mythology" and the title of M. L. West's 525-page scholarly monograph on the subject published in 2007 by the Oxford University Press is Indo-European Poetry and Myth. I would have suggested this move over a year ago, but I did not think it would have any chance of going through because people often associate the word "mythology" with the colloquial sense of the word "myth," meaning "a story that is not true," but, as it is used by scholars, the word "myth" does not imply truth or falsehood, but rather merely refers to a traditional story with cultural or religious significance. See, for instance, our own article myth, which defines the subject as follows: "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society, such as foundational tales. Myths often consist of sacred narratives about gods." Using the word "religion" in this sense to refer to mythology is just plain euphemistic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kingston upon HullHull – Nobody knows Hull by its full name. I suggest moving this page to "Hull" and the disambig page called "Hull" to "Hull (disambiguation)". When people search for this page, they are most likely to search "Hull" not "Kingston upon Hull" IWI (chat) 16:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KomejirushiReference mark – Per WP:COMMONAME, WP:NPOV, and WP:USEENGLISH. This has a common name in English. Meanwhile, komejirushi is just the Japanese term, but this also has names in other language where it is used frequently such as Korean: 참고표 chamgopyo 'reference mark', or (informally) 당구장표 danggujang-pyo 'billiard-table mark'. Last I looked, this isn't JapaneseOverKoreanPedia.
    PS: Reference mark is presently a redirect to Note (typography), for no apparent reason; the string "reference mark" doesn't appear anywhere in that article. If there's a source that connects them somehow, a hatnote can be used to disambiguate, at the top of the article presently at Komejirushi.
    Additional rationale: WP:CONSISTENCY: when in doubt, we default to the Unicode name of a glyph (sometimes with/without natural disambiguation like "sign", "symbol", "point", or "mark" added after the name, or occasionally with a leading one, at at Japanese postal mark – which we do not give as Japanese yūbin kigō!). Some examples: Section sign, Wave dash, Ordinal indicator, Therefore sign, Per mille, etc. We tend not to deviate from this unless another term is either a) much more common in English, or b) our article is on particular notable use/meaning of the glyph rather than the character itself per se (as at Basis point). — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 15:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Salsa roja picanteSalsa roja – The Mexican salsa verde and salsa roja are listed under the names salsa verde picante and salsa roja picante in the Spanish Wikipedia only because there are other (non-spicy, non-Mexican) sauces that are green/red. (The Spanish salsa verde is a herb sauce similar to the Italian salsa verde and the French sauce verte. See Commons:Category:Merluza en salsa verde for example.) In Mexico, the spicy salsas are just called salsa verde and salsa roja. The article about the Mexican green sauce is titled "Salsa verde (Mexico)" in the English Wikipedia, to avoid confusion with the Italian salsa verde. Unlike the phrase salsa verde which can mean both the Italian/Spanish herb sauce and the spicy Mexican salsa, the phrase salsa roja seems to mean only the spicy Mexican salsa. (The equivalent Italian phrase would be salsa rossa, not roja.) Currently "Salsa roja" is just a redirect to "Salsa roja picante" in the English Wikipedia. --Ptko (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 13, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Portuguese India ArmadasCarreira da Índia – Alternatively, Portuguese Indian armadas. Scarecrow's Historical Dictionary of Portugal has an entry for Carreira da Índia. The terms "Portuguese India(n) Armada(s)" do not appear in any work in English that I can find via Google, the lower case alternative would nonetheless be an acceptable descriptive title in English. The proposed title appears in the title of numerous scholarly articles in English ([18]), the proposed might imply a change in scope, since the current articles stops in the 1510s but the Carreira (as normally understood) continued into the 18th century. Srnec (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Google's Ideological Echo ChamberGoogle memo – My title is not ambiguous and is neutral, and unlike the status quo, the memo is commonly referred to as the Google memo in reliable sources. The memo is only referred to by its title when the source wants to state the actual title of the memo, which is not often. Usually a manifesto has "manifesto" in the title so a reader can guess that it is a manifesto from its title, but that's not the case here. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)EnodeBENodeB – From the article: "E-UTRAN Node B, also known as Evolved Node B (abbreviated as eNodeB or eNB),..." This is also the spelling used in literature as it derives from the more specific (written out) name. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chihayafuru Part 3Chihayafuru: Musubi – This film was never released under the title Chihayafuru Part 3. As far as I can tell, it was never released outside Japan, so defaulting to the original title of Chihayafuru: Musubi would be best, although Part 3 is used to refer to the film on sites like IMDB, that's not a reliable source for what this film should be referred to on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, reliable sources like Anime News Network and Crunchyroll have referred to the film with the Musubi title. 02:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 12, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Starship Children's HealthStarship Hospital – I think WP:COMMONNAME pretty much says it all here. "Starship Children's Health" should certainly be bolded in the lede, but "Starship Hospital" is how it's commonly referred to. It's also the site title of (interestingly, the site prominently uses "Starship Child Health" on the front page, I don't recall that being there before). Disclosure: I worked at Starship for over a decade, though I no longer do. Basie (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Second Emperor of QinQin Er Shi – "Qin Er Shi" is the original name of this page. As can be seen in the topic immediately above, a recent requested move moved "Qin Er Shi" to "Second Emperor of Qin". However, that requested move was a low-participation requested move, with only a single voter chiming in, and I believe that requested move should have been relisted instead of closed in order to garner more participation, and that it only passed due to this being a low-traffic page: note that the previous requested move also affected the much more high-traffic article and more prominent individual Qin Shi Huang, and that that portion of the requested move was then immediately overturned at Talk:Qin Shi Huang#Requested move 11 June 2018. Now, RM history aside, the correct name for this article should be Qin Er Shi, not Second Emperor of Qin, for two reasons. First, Qin Er Shi is the WP:COMMONNAME even in English (WP:UE), for example, on Google, "qin er shi" returns 54,600 hits, whereas "second emperor of qin" returns only 8,600 hits, an over 6-to-1 ratio in favor of Qin Er Shi. Second, for consistency with precedent: it makes no sense to favor "Second Emperor of Qin" over "Qin Er Shi" when we have the corresponding article "Qin Shi Huang" over "First Emperor of Qin". —Lowellian (reply) 00:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Arrow–Debreu modelArrow-Debreu-McKenzie model – It has become clear in recent years that McKenzie deserves just as much credit as Arrow and Debreu do for proving the existence of efficient general equilibria (if not more credit, given that McKenzie's proof appeared in Econometrica BEFORE Arrow and Debreu's). Moreover, we now know from archival research that Debreu, as one of the referees of McKenzie's paper, tried to delay its publication, and withheld knowledge of McKenzie's paper from Arrow. This matter has been exhaustively researched by Roy Weintraub at Duke; see his paper "Retrospectives . . ." in Journal of Economic Perspectives, and his book with Princeton University Press, FINDING EQUILIBRIUM. Further, the proof is already frequently referred to using the names of all three authors, and this class of models as the "Arrow-Debreu-McKenzie model" (or, less frequently, the "McKenzie-Arrow-Debreu model"). (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ri Yong-ho (politician)Ri Yong-ho (foriegn minister) – The subject of the current base title is also, by definition, a politician because he has been elected to a political body. Also, I am not convinced that the current base title is the primary topic, if there is one because while the soldier recieved the most coverage up until 2012, the foriegn minister is currently the one gaining the most media coverage recently, hence the base title is best suited to be a disambiguation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TanakhHebrew Bible – A procedural request after completing a merge of these two pages; while there was a clear consensus for a merge there was not a clear consensus for any specific name of the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Mahveotm (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)New states of GermanyNew Länder – the original name of the artikle was right, Länder is the official name used by the government in english as well. also there is a difference between a state and a land, so calling it states is misleading Norschweden (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Austrian Constitutional Assembly election, 1919Austrian Constituent Assembly election, 1919 – Constituent and Constitutional may be used as synonyms as presented by the article Constituent assembly which allows both phrases, but leads with "Constituent". "Constituent" appears the common word as also presented in and List of constituent assemblies which has a comprehensive overview of this category. Unless those assemblies have specific names, such as Continental Congress, "Constituent" seems the majority name, the references provided in the article refer to a "constituent" assembly, as do this source, as well as this one. In the native German, the assembly was called "konstituierend", see, the online dictionary of the Technical University of Munich prefers "constituent" as translation (link). Therefore, as per WP:COMMONNAME I request to move the article name, this had been done by another user before as WP:BOLD good faith move and reverted by the article author. However I do believe that the user was right to move the name. I don't strictly think this forum would have been required, however as suggested by the author of the English language article who opposed the move, I submit this request to clarify, as the move has created a redirect, this is as much a request to clarify the editing of the article to reflect the wording. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

  • (Discuss)Channel 9 (Mexico)Nu9ve – Nobody's calling it "Channel 9" in English, and it typically is being rendered as "Nu9ve", "El Nueve" or less commonly "NU9VE", though official use has been inconsistent. For editors not familiar with Spanish, nueve is nine in Spanish, and so an equivalent name in English would be "Nin9", it is also worth noting that the network was just relaunched with this new name on Monday, July 9; it was previously Gala TV, with the article at Gala TV (Mexico). Examples of official use: *The Twitter account is @ElNueveOf and labeled "El Nueve", it was @Nu9veOf at the start of the week. The Facebook page is listed as Canal Nu9ve. *The official website is titled "El Nu9ve". *This press release from July 4 uses NU9VE. News articles use the Nu9ve (or Canal Nu9ve — the use of Canal is not that common) rendering, as seen in El Sol de México and El Financiero. I had originally moved the article from Gala TV (Mexico) to Nu9ve on July 7 ahead of the name change effective Monday, which required a lot of changes to other Mexican TV lists and templates, it was moved back by User:Cristianocampo93, who said he thought the rendering made sense as a disambiguation. This school of thought would be similar to the page name of Channel 13 (Argentina) for a network that goes by El Trece. (The associated category uses El Trece, and I'd argue a move is warranted there; the categories related to this network still are labeled Gala TV.) eswiki uses Canal 9 (México). I would be interested in hearing opinions from a variety of editors, as I feel the current name is way out of tune with current usage, not idiomatic, and not the best location for the article. Raymie (tc) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vladislav, King of SyrmiaVladislav II Nemanjić – The actual title is artificial and cannot be verified by a reference to a single book [29]. The proposed name is applied by a study published in English and dedicated to Vladislav II Nemanjić's life ([30]), he is mentioned simply as Vladislav or Vladislav (son of Dragutin) in other specialized reliable sources ([31], [32]). Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SoundCloud rapMumble rap – Mumble rap is the most popular term for this subgenre as evidenced by Google search (over a million) and SoundCloud rap turns up just 250,000. It should be Mumble rap, also known as SoundCloud rap in the lede not reverse. The editor whose username is Z0 12:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Thomas W. L. AshleyThomas L. Ashley – Although the June 2010 obituary of Ashley in his local newspaper The Toledo Blade says he was "known universally as Lud" [34], "Thomas L. Ashley" is the far more common name than "Thomas W.L. Ashley" or the more informal "Lud Ashley" for this former member of the US Congress. The Washington Post frequently used "Thomas" while reporting about him. Google searches reveal: * 39 for "Thomas L. Ashley" * 35 results for "lud ashley", many of which use forms such as "Thomas (Lud) Ashley". * 9 for "Thomas Ashley" Ohio * 0 for "Thomas W.L. Ashley" As for The New York Times: * 179 results for "Thomas L. Ashley" * in contrast to eight for "Lud Ashley" And in general google results: * 8,000+ for "Thomas L. Ashley" Congress Ohio * 11,000+ for "Thomas Ashley" Congress ohio * 1,700+ for "Lud Ashley" Congress Ohio A search of the Vanderbilt Television News Archive [35] shows only three results for "Lud Ashley" but 36 for "Thomas Ashley." Bowling Green State University has a collection related to his congressional service titled the Thomas L. Ashley Congressional Papers. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Albanian Kingdom (1939–43)Italian occupation of Albania – This article title is a misnomer. There was no separate or even autonomous Albanian Kingdom between 1939 and 1943. Due to the royal personal union between Italy and Albania engineered by the Italians after their 1939 invasion of Albania, the kingdom that existed during this period was the "Kingdom of Italy and of Albania". I suggest this article be moved to a descriptive one, Italian occupation of Albania, which reflects the occupation law scholar Raphael Lemkin's observation that in all practical terms, Italy was in belligerent occupation of Albania from the time of its invasion in 1939 until the Italian capitulation in September 1943. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, this is a more natural title, being one that is more likely to be searched for, and is sufficiently precise that it does not require disambiguation, this move would also make this article title consistent with a number of other "occupation of" articles such as German occupation of Norway and Axis occupation of Greece. Per this ngram [39], "Italian occupation of Albania" has been used far more than even the undisambiguated "Albanian Kingdom", particularly in the period of WWII, but also more recently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)History of psychiatric institutionslunatic asylum – We should diverge and distinguish this article from the one covering modern mental hospitals (which only came into existence in about the 1920s), and refocus it squarely on lunatic asylums (which existed from medieval times to the 1900s). While there was a transition in care and an overlap in word usage (visible in this Google Ngram), there is a clear conceptual separation. The sections of this article called "20th century" and "Today" can be merged into the modern article post-move. Netoholic @ 03:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)James Freedman (pickpocket) → ? – There was a move request in 2013, whose result is to keep using "magician". It was nevertheless moved to "pickpocket" in 2015. I think it should be moved back to "magician"My preference changed in light of the comments below. Dokurrat (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC) or use "entertainer", as not only the 2015 move was done without discussion when there was such a discussion before, but also the subject of this article does not steal for real. Dokurrat (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC) (modified) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sasha (Welsh DJ) → ?Note: There is currenly another discussion about moving Sascha Schmitz to Sasha (singer). Okay here we go. Hello, I think that these articles might not have the right titles. Please add suggestions following my justification for this. Firstly, I would like to counter use of "Welsh". I believe that the country here is considered to be the United Kingdom, as that is the country that Wales is part of, so the nationality should be British, not Welsh or English. See also my move request at Talk:Hybrid (Welsh band). The articles also both describe Sasha as British in their opening sentences, and he is subjectively better known for working within England and around the UK, though this may be deemed a null point as it does not define nationality. So to summarise, a potential better title would be Sasha (British DJ). However, there may be no need for nationality disambiguation at all, and that's where I tie Sasha (Jamaican deejay) into this, it has recently been moved per my request away from Sasha (Jamaican DJ). See the request at Talk:Sasha (Jamaican deejay). In short, a Jamaican deejay and disc jockey are not the same thing, and labelling her as a DJ is inaccurate and confusing for readers. However, I went by what the article was formerly titled to arrive at the conclusion that I did, but it may not be correct. So that's when I ask, what is she? So this is the part when I rope in yet more Sashas into this. So as the note at the top says, Sascha Schmitz (whose stage name is also simply Sasha), is also in discussion for move, to a title better suited to WP:COMMONNAME. See the discussion at Talk:Sascha Schmitz. My initial idea was, of course, to name him Sasha (singer), but as an editor rightfully pointed out, this would have readers confuse him with Sasha Gradiva, a Russian singer. So whilst not technically needed, the reader-friendly disambiguated title for him would be Sasha (German singer). (This is not relative to this current move, sorry if it's confusing. See Sasha (disambiguation) for help). That then leads me on to think... Sasha (Jamaican deejay) is also a singer, so if we were to be consistent, shouldn't we title her article Sasha (Jamaican singer) too? But WP:SINGERDAB says to use (singer) if they are known exclusively for singing, which may not be the case. So, following SINGERDAB, Sasha (Jamaican musician) may be more appropriate. SINGERDAB also states to only use one of the provided disambiguation tags, of which (deejay) is not one of them, so should not be used, it states to use (DJ) if the subject is known for DJing, which as mentioned before, it not the case here so should not be left an option. But I am undecided on the ideal title for (Jamaican deejay), so suggestions would be appreciated. This brings me back to Sasha (Welsh DJ). I think that, ideally, this article should be titled Sasha (DJ), which currently redirects here. If (Jamaican deejay) is moved to a better title, readers should not confuse her with (Welsh DJ). However, either way, I think that (Welsh DJ) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Sasha (DJ), he is the first result for "Sasha DJ" on google with nobody else showing up for multiple pages. His article is also the longest here, not to mention that this is a featured article, he is also the only real DJ out of all of them, anyway. So I have made my earlier points regarding nationality, but this is the title I believe to be ideal for this article, however it may depend on other articles being moved and I would like to keep it open to ideas. Of course, the disambiguation of his discography article should be changed depending on what the final decided title of (Welsh DJ) will be. I hope that we reach a good consensus on this, Thank you. Lazz_R 23:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DebaggingPantsingWP:COMMONNAME. The previous RM was wrong to suggest "pantsing" is an Americanism; it's also the common term in Australia (when "dakking" isn't used), and Canada, and various other places (the variant depantsing or de-pantsing also turns up in various places, including in the US, but this just makes "pantsing" a bit more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "debagging" anyway). The UK has no consistent term for this at all, as our article already makes clear. "Debagging" is just a term used at particular British schools.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 19:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)John Diggle (character)John Diggle (Arrow) – To follow the convention given at WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles which says to use the TV series title as the disambiguator. While this character has subsequently made special appearances in other TV series and in comics, so has the prime example given at NCTV of Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The character's creation and primary appearance are both from the Arrow TV series. Please note that the target has significant history, with three separate article creations and 3 subsequent redirects based on notability. Open to ideas where to best hold this history if the RM passes (my suggestion would be a history merge). -- Netoholic @ 06:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)



  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).

See also[edit]