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 17 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 17 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 05:05, 17 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 17 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 05:05, 17 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 17 November 2018

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 05:05, 17 November 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 17 November 2018

– why Example (talk) 05:05, 17 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 17 November 2018

– why Example (talk) 05:05, 17 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 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. 53 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

November 17, 2018

  • (Discuss)Operation Hope NotFuneral of Winston Churchill – Second nomination. WP:CONTENTFORKING issue raised in previous move proposal has now been tackled, as per discussion at Talk:Later life of Winston Churchill#Merger proposal, so full discussion of the article's name can now take place. Article is now (even more) substantially about the funeral itself, not merely its planning. It is already linked as such in at Template:Winston Churchill. Discussions indicate that this is the preferred structure for Churchill's pages, and I would argue that "Funeral of Winston Churchill" encompasses both the plan ('Operation Hope Not') and the event itself, whereas "Operation Hope Not" only indicates the former. This is misleading, as (considering the plan was enacted as intended) it is impossible (and not desirable) to talk about the plan without discussing the event itself. Additionally, more detailed references are currently included for the day of the funeral itself than the plan. If the move goes ahead, the opening lines of the current lead section would be moved down to the 'Plan' section. U-Mos (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Deaths in 2018Deaths in November 2018 – This page is misleading the only deaths are in the month of November not the entire year. They are other pages that show deaths in months in 2018. If you like the name as is please make this page about every death in the year and not just November. Phoenix X Maximus (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16, 2018

  • (Discuss)Pilot (Adventure Time) → ? – I'm not sure why this was moved to begin with. While the short is the pilot to the series, it only because so post facto. When it was initially released, it was simply called "Adventure Time". As such, having it labelled like it is now is incorrect. @Matt14451: I'm curious as to why you moved it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:46, 16 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)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)KOHH (Japanese artist)KOHH – Not sure why this is placed at this disambiguated title when KOHH is literally a redirect to this. The hatnote pointing to KOHN already exists on this page so this excess disambiguation is only disservice to readers. NØ 10:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (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)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AntillesThe Antilles – Per WP:THE, we should include "The" in the name if one of the two conditions are met: (1) If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, and (2) If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text. In this case, (1) is met because there are at least three smaller Antilles other than the greater one. Antilles by itself is very confusing. Also, The Maritimes can be used as a good example, considering there are other entities that can also be referred to as "Maritimes", such as Maritime Southeast Asia. Kenwick (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Puebla CityPuebla (city) – Previous comments above suggest this city is known as simply "Puebla", but there is not consensus to move "Puebla City" to "Puebla". Therefore, we should disambiguate as "Puebla (city)", no? --Another Believer (Talk) 06:11, 16 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) --Relisting. bd2412 T 05:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15, 2018

  • (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)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tasmanian nativehenTasmanian Native Hen – 99% of sources use "Tasmanian Native Hen" (please see the post above for five web citations - 2 from Australian universities - & a book reference; also talk page post dated 18 Nov 2011, to which no-one has responded for three years, suggesting that the move should be uncontroversial). Moreover, "nativehen" is not a word (full argument re this at Nov 2011 post). Philologia (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The Belles of St Trinian'sThe Belles of St. Trinian's – The movie poster clearly shows that a dot is used after the abbreviation "St", as was the style in British English in the 1950s (although this is no longer usual practice in British English). IMDb ([[11]]) also includes a dot in the title. (There is a redirect page with this name already, so this would need to be swapped with the existing article.) Paul G (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14, 2018

  • (Discuss)Carmelo SoriaAssassination of Carmelo Soria – The majority of this article centers on Soria's murder and aftermath. Although Soria was a diplomat it appears that the main reason he is notable is because of his assassination. Renaming the article would allow the article's primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) to be his assassination and the events that occurred after. Rbcshw (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)En tu ausenciaEn Tu AusenciaWP:CAPITALISATION: "En Tu Ausencia" appears to be the correct title case capitalisation of this film. I do not speak Spanish, so if I am incorrect about the capitalisation, please rename the title to its correct title case capitalisation as it would appear in Spanish. (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mishing peopleMising people – "Mising people" and "Missing language" return more results on both google books and google scholar than the phrases with the alternative spelling. "Mising" is also the standard spelling used by both ethnologue and glottolog, and the one used in all of the twenty or so titles in the bibliography in the second link. Judging by previous posts on this talk page, it also appears to be the one preferred by the people themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 13:38, 14 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)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)GensericGaiseric – 1. Gaiseric is a generally-accepted form. Geiseric is also. Either would be an improvement. 2. The oldest available text of this article only uses "Genseric" in the title. 3. For Gaiseric: Guy Halsall uses Gaiseric in Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Gaiseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 521 results. 4. For Geiseric: Peter Heather uses Geiseric in Fall of the Roman Empire. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Geiseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 442 results. 5. For Genseric: seems to predominate among older 19th and early-20th century sources. On Google scholar, since 1918, excluding patents and citations, "Genseric" Vandals -Vandalism gets 412 results. (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13, 2018

  • (Discuss)Wellington High School (New Zealand)Wellington High School, New Zealand – According to our naming conventions, we use a comma rather than ellipses for disambiguation, and we use the city that the school is located in rather than "New Zealand". Problem is that there are a number of towns and cities around the world called Wellington so the city name by itself isn't sufficient and further disambiguation is needed. It doesn't seem logical to have "Wellington" as both the school's name and as part of the disambiguation (e.g. "Wellington High School, Wellington, New Zealand"). We can't use the name of the region either as it's the same as the city. I think the most sensible way around this problem is to simply drop the city name from the dab and use the country name for disambiguation only (in contravention of our naming conventions) but use a comma instead of ellipses. Schwede66 17:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Lincoln High School (New Zealand)Lincoln High School, Selwyn – According to our naming conventions, we use a comma rather than ellipses for disambiguation, and we use the city or town that the school is located in rather than "New Zealand". The school is located in Lincoln, New Zealand and it doesn't seem quite right to use "Lincoln" as a dab as there are dozens of American schools of this name that commemorate the American president Abraham Lincoln. There are a number of options here and I tend to favour the use of the district name as that is closest (as it were) to our convention of using the town's name: "Selwyn". Schwede66 17:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bethlem Royal HospitalBedlam – This is its common name, steeped in hundreds of years of history. By the principle of least surprise, it should be Bedlam. Nobody even knows the alleged real name of Bedlam. Somebody, without getting consensus, took over a disambig page and cut-and-pasted the text, and turned the Bedlam page into a disambig. Presumably they thought they were righting a great wrong, that the name Bedlam is negative and its fancied real name is better. Abductive (reasoning) 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (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)--Relisting.Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12, 2018

  • (Discuss)Tinfos NiziNizi International – Company name changed in July 2010 from "Tinfos Nizi" to "Nizi International". Request mandated by the upper management of Nizi International in Capellen, Luxembourg. Deliah1087 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (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) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11, 2018

  • (Discuss)FC Steaua BucureștiFCSB – I am now proposing this move of the article to the correct title FCSB according to policies because it has been protected so that only certain users can move it and because there was a moratorium, so it could not be done before. The result of the last discussion was "no consensus" and all our arguments (and therefore policies) were ignored. The COMMONNAME policy states that we give greater weight to sources published after the name change, so we give greater weight to sources published after May 4 2018, when Steaua Bucharest officially changed name to FCSB. We presented arguments that after that date the Romanian Football Federation, the Romanian Professional Football League, UEFA, FIFA and the club itself use FSCB on their websites and other channels, both in Romanian and in English. Also the vast majority of media in English language uses the new name after that date, as we presented examples. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so it is irrelevant if some English speaking editors hold some emotional attachment to the old name of the once European champions, we must follow the reliable sources after the name change and the opposing camp presented not one proof that the common name has somehow miraculously stayed at FC Steaua București. Linhart (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (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 [17], [18], [19] 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[20] 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.[21] 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[22]. 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 [23] "New Mosque Mytilene" 0 results [24] 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.[25][26][27]. 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.[28] (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)

Elapsed listings

  • (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, 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 empathySimulation 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)
  • (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)ReptiliansReptilian humanoid – Current name is confusing; see discussion at the bottom of [36]. 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)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[5] 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)


See also


  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.