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[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

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[edit]

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[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 13 September 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 13 September 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 04:03, 13 September 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 13 September 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 04:03, 13 September 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 13 September 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 04:03, 13 September 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 13 September 2018

– why Example (talk) 04:03, 13 September 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 13 September 2018

– why Example (talk) 04:03, 13 September 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. 39 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

September 13, 2018[edit]

September 12, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Sex and the lawSexual offense – This article stands out as not following the pattern of other articles about specific crimes and categories of crime. The pattern with other article titles are names of crimes or categories, rather than "subject and the law". The former is a better pattern to follow because it is less vague, and more accurate as to the actual article content and focus. This article should follow suit and be called something like "sexual offense" or "sex crime". ··gracefool 💬 09:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GheerahGhayrah – This word is transliterated corrected from Arabic غَيْرَة as 'Ghayrah', or alternatively 'Ghayra'. The 'ay' pronunciation (sometimes transliterated as 'ai', i.e. 'Ghairah') within the word is the correct and most common usage in English. LissanX (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Four Seasons BathroomFour-Season Bathhouse – This title has various errors. “Four Seasons Bathroom” makes no sense. Firstly, it’s a bathhouse, not a bathroom. Secondly, the correct way of saying it is relating to all four seasons is ‘four-season’. LissanX (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Decade: Greatest HitsDecade (Duran Duran album) – I find it rather puzzling as to why this article is named the way it is, when obviously, the words "Greatest Hits" appear nowhere on the compilation's inner and outer artwork, and here on Wikipedia might actually be the only place where this compilation is actually referred to as such, but I could be wrong. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 03:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

September 11, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)NCsoftNCSOFT – Reversal of previous RM. The referenced guideline was MOS:CAMELCASE but I do not think that was the most applicable guideline since "ncsoft" does not consist of complete words, but rather an initialism ("NC") followed by an abbreviation ("soft", presumably for software). Therefore there is no "standard English" representation of this mark. Instead, I believe the guideline that should apply is MOS:ACRO, which covers initialisms and abbreviations. It is also preferable IMO to avoid the ambiguity of what the "proper" camelcase would be (e.g. "NCsoft" or "NCSoft"), as in either case Wikipedia is basically inventing the convention. As an aside, it was not specified how the original requester determined that one was more popular than the other, but for example these recent articles[1][2] use "NCSoft". The very definition of camel case would also imply that "Soft" should begin with a capital as it is the start of a word unit. If "NCSOFT" is still considered improper, then also consider "NCSoft" as a preferable alternative. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Stir-fried ice cream → ? – I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to a new name "Rolled ice cream". I have submitted this move twice and it worked; however, one other user will change it back to "Stir-fried ice cream". Now I can no longer move the article name to "Rolled ice cream". I received a notification from this user saying "Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Stir-fried ice cream." I am posting here because I believe that "Rolled ice cream" does in fact make more sense than "Stir-fried ice cream" and here is why. An article/interview from 'The Splendid Table' written on July 24, 2018 refers to this type of ice cream as "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" in the title and throughout the article. The owner of a Thai Rolled Ice Cream parlor mentions that Stir-fried ice cream is a nickname to Thai Rolled Ice Cream as it is an analogy for how the rolls come to be made, but the actual end product is the rolls of ice cream. The Splendid Table From CBS News, an article from 2017 features a special, titled "Today's Special: Rolled Ice Cream". The article discusses what this style of ice cream is, the process to forming the end product and the craze of this trend that has expanded globally. This article from CBS News does not mention stir-fried ice cream, but does mention rolled ice cream and ice cream rolls. CBS News Stores that have picked up on this trend refer to this style of ice cream and rolled ice cream. A restaurant in the DMV called "520 Ice Cream and Tea" refers to their ice cream as rolled ice cream, as does La Moo, a ice cream parlor in Arlington. This title for this ice cream stretches all the way across the country to California. A store named "Cold Rolled Ice Cream Company" refers to their ice cream as rolled or rolls, not stir-fried. 520 Ice Cream and Tea , La Moo , Cold Rolled Ice Cream For these reasons listed above I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to the new name "Rolled ice cream". If anyone is able to help me make this move, I would appreciate it. Thank you! Latte2424 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Austrian Armed ForcesBundesheer – The official name of the Austrian military (as used by everyone) is "Bundesheer", comparable to the German Bundeswehr. The Bundesheer has never been referred to as "österreichische Streitkräfte(=Austrian Armed Forces)" and hence, I don't see why this article should be called that way. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

September 10, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Charter88Charter 88 – The successor organisation, Unlock Democracy, has republished the charter. This uses the spelling "Charter 88" throughout, which provides the official name. The spelling "Charter 88" provides 346 results in Google News, whilst "Charter88" provides eight. Of these eight results, most of them more commonly use the spelling "Charter 88". Google Books gives us 13,800 results for "Charter 88" and 2,330 for "Charter88". I think this establishes "Charter 88" as the common name. The move is also an improvement in naturalness. Ralbegen (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fossoli di CarpiFossoli camp – To improve precision in the article title, per WP:PRECISION. The camp's history went well beyond WWII and it was used as a POW camp, concentration & transit camp and refuge camp at various stages, so naming it Fossoli concentration camp or Fossoli transit camp is probably focusing to much on one specific period of its existence. The Italian Wikipedia, for example, uses Campo di Fossoli and, per WP:TRANSLITERATE, Fossoli camp is the direct translation of this. Turismond (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

September 9, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)SMC 18136SMC 018136 – The original publication of this designation included a leading zero. The only citation in the article using this designation includes a leading zero. This form was originally used for the article title, then changed without discussion at the start of this year. Simbad uses the form [M2002] SMC 18136 for uniqueness and drops the leading zero, but this form is not used in the literature. The SMC 018136 designation is possibly not the most common usage, with PMMR 37 and Sk 63 (or SkKM 63) also being common. Lithopsian (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dashti YahudiDasht-e Yahudi – The correct transliteration of this name from Urdu is 'Dasht-e Yahudi'. The vowel after 'Dasht' is the Persian Ezafe which was inherited in Urdu. It should not be written as a single word, and the vocalization of 'e' is far more prevalent than 'i'. LissanX (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

September 8, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Chicago Blood Cancer FoundationCharlene McMannUser:JzG nominated the "Charlene McMann" page for deletion, and, after there was no consensus, he moved it to "Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation" without any discussion. Given the history of this article, this strikes me as extremely inappropriate. I think it should be moved back immediately, and JzG should be scolded, at least. (And lest anyone think I'm biased, I agree with JzG on the merits of deletion: I've nominated this article for deletion myself and voted for deletion on the other noms. But this is still inexcusable behavior by him.)—Chowbok 19:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 19:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Buddhist Library (Singapore)Buddhist Library – There is only one 'Buddhist Library' on the wiki which makes it a precise enough title to warrant a move back to the original title. However, the page move is blocked because a previous article was created there. Looking at the history of the pages, Buddhist Library (Singapore) was created before Buddhist Library, but somehow most of the content in the 'Buddhist Library' ended up duplicating content in 'Buddhist Library (Singapore)', so I merged the contents into the page with the older page history. It seems like almost all of the wikilinking is done with 'Buddhist Library' instead of 'Buddhist Library (Singapore)' so this also justifies the move. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of films broadcast by NickelodeonList of Nickelodeon original films – Work performed on this article over the last two and half year has involved sourcing all its extant entries, and removing everything that was unsourced/unsourceable, particularly the rebroadcast of theatrically-released films which couldn't be sourced and are frankly non-notable ("reruns") anyway. The result of this work is that the WP:SCOPE of this article has shifted and changed: the current WP:SCOPE of the article is now "films" that have had their premieres on the U.S. Nickelodeon television channel. Thus, the article's current scope is now similar to List of Disney Channel original films – namely, films produced by Nickelodeon for the intent to premiere/be broadcast on Nickelodeon: i.e. so-called "Nickelodeon original films". As such, I am proposing that this article be moved to correctly reflect the current WP:SCOPE of the article. (See the earlier topics on this Talk page for more.) --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of cities in IsraelList of Israeli cities – Was promoted to FL with this name [9], and was in fact renamed during the FL nom. "In Israel" poses NPOV questions regarding cities in annexed areas (Golan), and occupied and as of yet unannexed areas (West Bank) - as well as issues with cities that straddle tue green line (or passs over by a bit). Israeli, on the other hand, is a factual description of all these cities - which regardless of location are adminstered by the same process under the Israeli Interior mjnistry. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LouseLice – Per WP:PLURAL: "With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, we prefer the common and unastonishing title: bacteria, algae, and data, rather than bacterium, etc." Lice seems to fit this exception, as it is an irregular plural that is far more common than its singular form. Many people don't even know the singular form. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HegiraHijrah – The transliteration of Arabic هِجْرَة to 'Hegira' is frankly an abomination. The Arabic letter ـجـ is pronounced in both Classical and Modern Standard Arabic as an English 'j'. There is no 'g' vocalization in the language, save for some colloquial dialects such as Egyptian Arabic. There is also no equivalent to the vowel 'e', and an additional 'i' has been added again because of dialectical epenthesis. The correct transliteration of the Arabic term, as well as the common English usage, is 'Hijra' or 'Hijrah'. There is no legitimate reason for this term to be written as 'Hegira'. LissanX (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)QamaQammeh – 'Qama' is a dialectical Arabic pronunciation of 'قَمَّة'. The standard Persian vocalization transliterates as 'qammeh' or 'qamme'. LissanX (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dan Sullivan (American senator)Dan Sullivan (U.S. Senator) – "senator" should not have a lowercase 's'. American Senator is never used to refer to a Senator, rather U.S./United States Senator is (in the infobox of almost all Senator articles). Whoever had the page moved to this must not be familiar with general standards for Wikipedia articles. Redditaddict69 00:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

September 7, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Yaprak (food)Vine leaf roll – The Turkish name for the dish is yaprak sarması (literally "leaf sarma") or yaprak dolması (literally "leaf dolma"), in the same way that cabbage rolls are called lahana sarması (literally "cabbage sarma") or lahana dolması (literally "cabbage dolma"). The word yaprak just means "leaf". Furthermore, this vine leaf roll doma or sarma is called simply as "dolma" in Greek and many Caucasian as well as Balkan cuisines, (e.g. It is called dolmas in Greece). Perhaps it's a good idea to move the artile to Vine leaf roll. --Manduco (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)People's Liberation Army NavyChinese Navy – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Chinese Navy" is used far more than "People's Liberation Army Navy", in both the English media and in every day use by English speaking users. This appears to the same in China, with both the Chinese gov't and media, for 10 years now, as per this section -that was until recently in- the lead for List of active Chinese Navy ships; "As of 2008, English-language official Chinese state media no longer uses the term "People's Liberation Army Navy", instead the term "Chinese Navy" along with the usage of the unofficial prefix "CNS" for "Chinese Navy Ship" is now employed."[1]


*Note: this has since been removed. The source has been challenged (and I don't read Chinese, so...) *Note: here is the English translation of the attached source. The Chinese gov't indeed does use "Chinese Navy" instead of "PLAN". Read for yourself... Additionally, as per Google search results; *"Chinese Navy": 499,000,000 hits *"Peolple's Liberation Army Navy": 4,090,000 hits. :That is literally a half billion vs four million. - wolf 19:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Meon, HampshireMeon (hamlet) – It was clearly established in the previous RM that this hamlet isn't primary for "Meon" in that case as "Meon" goes directly to the river in Hampshire, "Meon, Hampshire" should also follow it, thus the old title should also redirect to River Meon. The current title fails WP:PRECISE. The hamlet isn't that notable apart from being in the Domesday Book. If there is later consensus that the DAB should be at Meon as was argued above then this title should also redirect to the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)World Heritage siteWorld Heritage Site – I think the move request above was incorrect. I'm usually in favour of using lower case for titles where they are not really proper names, but in this case World Heritage Site very clearly is treated as a proper name by reliable sources. As well as the ngram for the raw terms that Randy mentions above, (which would include titles of pages as well) see this ngram for a comparison of "World Heritage Site is" and "World Heritage Sites are" to give an idea of how it is used in running text: [11]. The capitalised form has a large lead in both cases, and precedent in previous RMs (e.g. Syrian Civil War) says that's a sufficient bar for us to treat it as a proper name.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Old City (Jaffa)Old Jaffa – Name change is hereby suggested for the following two reasons: [1] Per WP:COMMONNAME. [2] Even if someone holds both name options near equal, the commonly used name that does not need disambiguation should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

September 6, 2018[edit]

Elapsed listings[edit]

  • (Discuss)Eve (2003 TV series)Eve (U.S. TV series) – The U.S. Eve article was moved by Hydrocorti87 from Eve (U.S. TV series) on November 1, 2016 without explanation. The UK Eve article was moved from Eve (UK TV series) by Ss112 on September 15, 2017 with the edit summary "WP:DAB does not cover this. WP:NCTV does, and says we can prefix the country of origin, or year of debut. Both are just as correct.", also by Hydrocorti87 on October 15, 2016, again without explanation and without discussion. However, despite the result of the previous requested move discussion for the U.S. TV series from September 2017, there is no question that this is a circumstance where "by country" disambiguation is actually preferred under WP:NCTV as more recognizable to our readers searching for these two articles. In addition, Eve (Mauritian TV series) also exists (see Eve (disambiguation)#Film and television), so the case for "by country" disambiguation for all three articles is even stronger. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Vityaz-SNPP-19-01 Vityaz′ – As can be seen over on Russian Wikipedia's article and Kalashnikov Concern's Russian page for the Vityaz′, the current version is called the PP-19-01 isp.20 "Vityaz′-SN". As Russian Wikipedia states, this is a variant of the PP-19-01 isp.10 "Vityaz′". Whilst Modern Firearms (and Russian Wikipedia, because it uses MF as its source) is incorrect about the nonexistent left-side charging handle and left-side safety/selector lever on the isp.20, it is clearly not wrong about the addition of Picatinny rails, which seems to be the only thing differentiating the isp.10 "Vityaz′" and the isp.20 "Vityaz′-SN". As far as "Vityaz′", rather than "Vityaz" the soft sign is denoted by a prime, though if technical restrictions or convention don't allow, PP-19-01 Vityaz would work too. Thanks, RadiculousJ (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LingayenLingayen (disambiguation) – For the base term "Lingayen", there is only one WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that is the town/municipality which is also the capital of the province of Pangasinan in the Philippines. The other topics listed on the disambiguation page ("Lingayen Gulf", "Invasion of Lingayen Gulf", and "USS Lingayen") are (1) almost never referred to with just "Lingayen" and (2) are all etymologically derived from the name of the town. A simple Google search supports the first reason. — seav (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The ClefsLevi Smith's Clefs – This is the group's name from 1967 to 1972, it is more widely used than their original name. It appears on more of their releases, including their sole album. Although referred to under either name in reliable sources, both McFarlane and Kimball use Levi Smith's Clefs in their respective article's title. The original should be a redirect to the new name. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ripple (payment protocol)XRP Ledger (payment protocol) – Every new mention of the " Ripple Protocol " is now " XRP Ledger ", hence making it the most broadly used term to talk about the ledger. Here are a few sources to prove it: - the XRP Ledger Portal, main ressource for all develloppers working on the XRP ledger : "The XRP Ledger is a decentralized cryptographic ledger powered by a network of peer-to-peer servers. The XRP Ledger is the home of XRP[...] " Every mention of the ledger is labelled under " XRP ledger " and not " Ripple protocol " anymore. - These documents are maintained by the people who created the XRP ledger, among them David Schwartz, one of the main architect of the Ripple protocol/XRPLedger, who also refer to the ledger as " XRP ledger ", see here : - the description of the ledger in the github repository that hosts the code of the ledger " Decentralized cryptocurrency blockchain daemon implementing the XRP Ledger in C++ " - Looking at google trends to compare " XRP Ledger " and " Ripple protocol" shows you there are much searches for " XRP Ledger",,XRP%20ledger Finally I would add that pretty much every big crypto news website such as Coindesk or tech website news like thenextweb now refers to the ledger as " XRP Ledger ". These are multiples reasons of why the page name should be changed to " XRP Ledger", because it is now the most broadly used term to call the ledger. (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)TigrayansTigrinyas – The name of this article should be changed from Tigrayans to Tigrinyas as the official nomenclature for the ethnic group is Tigrinyas and not Tigrayans. The article confuses identity with nationality; the two terms are not interchangeable. The term Tigrayans is strictly used to describe the inhabitants of the Tigray region in Ethiopia, regardless of their ethnic background, and does not include Tigrinyas in Eritrea and elsewhere. Tigrinyas on the other hand is more neutral and correctly describes all the Tigrinya specking groups regardless of nationality. This change is crucial to avoid further requests to undo the recent merger. Divex 17:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Doctor Sleep (film)Close Your Eyes (film) – My assessment of coverage of this topic shows that Close Your Eyes is the much more common title in film critics' reviews as well as in Google Books results. For whatever reason, the home media is titled Doctor Sleep but is not discussed otherwise. The article does not seem to have correct information, so I would not follow what it says in matters of distribution. We can use hatnotes to guide readers, but Close Your Eyes should be the set title for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Memphis (disambiguation)Memphis – Among the city in Tennessee, the one in Egypt and the other entries there is no clear primary topic [[15]]. There has been some debate above and at Talk:Memphis about which city should be primary. It has been pointed out in other discussions that US cities are usually have the state as part of the name. The city in Egypt is hugely significant as it was once the largest city in the world and the city in Tennessee was named after it. This comment that "Myriads of 10 year old kids..." probably applies here as the subject clearly has enduring notability. However it has been pointed out that readers will still have 1 click such as Worcester/Worcester, Massachusetts but many of the arguments such as being the original and the US city naming would apply to Egypt. I as a resident of neither the US nor Egypt have heard of both outside WP, TN from music that mentions it and Egypt from museums. The city in Egypt is a level 4 vital article while the TN one is level 5, of which was formally one of the ways to establish PT outside searches, before the long-term significance was included. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KhwarezmKhwarazm – It has 16.000 more results in books, not to mention many major academic sources such as the Cambridge History of Iran and History of Civilizations of Central Asia use this spelling. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Triple X syndromeTrisomy X – As it stands, the articles regarding polysomy X conditions are inconsistently named. The ideal protocol for all three major polysomy X conditions would be naming them [number]somy X, as is common for aneuploidies not better known by another name -- that is, the pages would be Trisomy, Tetrasomy, and Pentasomy X. The present article titles are Triple X syndrome, Tetrasomy X, and 49,XXXXX. While all three conditions are known by various names, and Trisomy X in particular has a genuine claim to 'Triple X syndrome' as an equally or more accessible name, the current disparity in names is a detriment to the user-friendliness and accessibility of all three articles. I have recommended use of the '[number]somy X' format, but a 47,XXX/48,XXXX/49,XXXXX format is also possible (though would be less accessible), or a formal syndrome name if a well-known one happened to exist for any of the relevant disorders. However, the present situation is far from optimal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Loev (film)Loev – "Loev" currently redirects to "Loyew", which is not spelt the same way (the other spelling for the town is "Loyev") and the article does not mention the spelling "Loev" anywhere. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


See also[edit]


  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).