Closing instructions

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.
"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

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

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Administrator needed

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcuts

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

  • 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. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

Shortcut

To request a single page move, click on the "New section" tab of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new subject/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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a simple question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 23 July 2022" and sign the post for you.

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 affected page:

Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Google Ngrams and pageview statistics) and refer to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics.

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

Shortcut

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

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code: 

{{subst:requested move
| current1 = Current title of page 1
| 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically.
}}
See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. Such requests may be completed as a request to decide the best new title by discussion.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move|new|reason=why}}
links talk 
Requested move 23 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2022 (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 23 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2022 (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 23 July 2022

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2022‎ (UTC)

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



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

{{subst:Requested move|new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 23 July 2022

– why Example (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2022 (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 23 July 2022

– why Example (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

Relisting should be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

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

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

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 57 discussions have been relisted.

July 23, 2022

July 22, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Ptasie mleczko → Bird's milk – The article is about a group of Eastern European sweets the names of which in various languages (ptasie mleczko, ptichye moloko, linnupiim, putnu piens, paukščių pienas, ptichye moloko, lapte de pasăre, ptashyne moloko etc.) all mean "bird's milk" rather than just the original E. Wedel-owned brand. That's also how authorative topical resources, such as The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets, refers to it as. Turaids (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – CBBC (TV channel) → CBBC – I don't want to come off as annoying due to me constantly asking for moves, but this one I really have to make. The TV channel is 100% the primary topic. cbbc.co.uk is the domain for the website of this channel, @cbbc on Twitter is for this TV channel, and would assume out of the other CBBC pages, this one gets the most page views. Thomasfan1000 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Southampton City Golf Course → Southampton Municipal Golf Course – I’ve been working to improve and expand this article throughout this morning in an attempt to bring it into line with Wikipedia guidelines (taking a break from the article for a short while before seeing what else I can find and add), and from the sources that I have read, the golf course is referred to as Southampton Municipal Golf Course by Southampton City Council, who took over management last year. See [5] as one example. Didn’t want to go ahead and change the name straight away, because I think people do refer to it as Southampton Golf Course, but I think the term Southampton City Golf Course was more commonly used by the previous management. The different names could also be redirected to the new name or vice versa, whichever name is chosen by discussion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Views (album) → Views – This is the only article with this title. This album has won several awards, and was nominated for even more. The album topped over 10 charts, and broke the record for most songs on the Billboard Hot 100, simultaneously. Suffice to say, this is the primary topic. Tree Critter (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lopez Opening → ? – No reliable source to indicate this opening was ever known as the "Lopez Opening" until a wikipedia editor used that name in 2006. "Lopez Opening" is a confusing name which most chess players would assume refers to the Ruy Lopez. Staunton (1848) uses "Queen's Bishop's Pawn's Opening". "Centre Pawn Opening" (used by Hooper & Whyle, 1994) is another possibility, but "MacLeod Attack" is an invention of Schiller (1998) and is not recommended. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

July 21, 2022

  • (Discuss) – RF (disambiguation) → RF – The base name RF is being used as a redirect to radio frequency, which is not the primary topic for the acronym. There are 27 different "RF" articles listed at the dab page. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Recognition of same-sex unions in Andorra → Same-sex marriage in Andorra – 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. You don't need to add your signature at the end, as this template will do so automatically. Robsalerno (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) → Liberal Democratic Party – I argue that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Liberal Democratic Party". Taking a look at the two usual criteria: For usage: Out of all the articles called "Liberal Democratic Party", this article gets the bulk of the views (i.e. more than two-thirds.) Unfortunately there's too many to fit into one pageviews query, so here's two links. For long-term significance: Of the other articles called Liberal Democratic Party ([country]), all are minor parties, and most never won any parliamentary seats. Contrast that with this article, which is about a party that has governed Japan for the vast majority of the last 70 years. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tiffany Darwish → Tiffany – Why is Tiffany Darwish's surname being used as part of this article's name? She's not generally speaking known by her full name, she has never been known by her full name on any music videos or any merchandise like posters, t-shirts, tours, etc. There's no confusion between her and Tiffany Young with the latter going by and being known by her full name. Even if there were two people sharing the same mononym that's still not a good enough reason to include the surnames of both of them when one of them has never really been known by her surname and a simple (born 1971) for Tiffany Darwish and (born 1989) for Tiffany Young would solve it anyway. We all know that Madonna's full name is Madonna Ciccone, but her surname isn't used in the article's name about her because she's never gone by her surname, the same goes for Tiffany. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Quidditch (real-life sport) → Quadball – Official name change supported by both US Quadball[1] and the International Quadball Association[2], the two biggest governing bodies in quadball. Name change has been expected for over a year now (i.e. the community have been on board with a name change) and was made official on the 19th July. The ame change has been posted by many major news sites[3][4][5][6][7][8] and a precendent has been set on Wikipedia by when Ultimate_(sport) in relation to the common name, when Ultimate changed it's name due to copyright reasons related to frisbee. -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) -- NotCharizard 🗨 07:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Python brongersmai → Blood python – This species has a well accepted and unambiguous common name, so I suggest that this article should use that title. The target name has apparently always led to this topic and in fact was the name of the article about this snake before 2007. There was a page move of 2007 when someone moved it away from that name with an edit summary saying "Scientific names should be used for page names on biological organisms whenever possible to avoid confusion." That is not Wikipedia's current naming convention, which prefers common names. I've had a little trouble tracing the page history – I wonder if there was a WP:CUTPASTE move. Some of the edit history is now at Python curtus brongersmai, where the 2007 article was moved and then later converted to a redirect in 2014. This species was previously considered a subspecies of Python curtus, but was elevated to species status. In fact the binomial name situation is a bit confusing, since older sources would call this snake P. curtus instead of P. brongersmai. The Reptile Database does not show "blood python" as a common name for P. curtus; it only shows that name for P. brongersmai. An NGram chart is here. The suggested term is also more popular than "Python brongersmai" in Google Scholar and vastly more popular in a Google Advanced Search for exact phrases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

July 20, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots → ? – The current title gives a misleading impression that this page is about the history of Wikipedia bots in general, rather than the more specific class of automated content-creating bots. A more specific title, perhaps "Wikipedia:History of content-creation bots" or "Wikipedia:History of automated content creation" would work better. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:5CC:ED1D:EA7E:6AC1 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – King Neptune (statue) → Statue of Neptune – Per WP:VAMOS, which says, "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo", "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" are recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better. This may be done as either "Statue of Fred Foo (Chicago)" (typically preferred for North America) or "Statue of Fred Foo, Glasgow" (typically preferred elsewhere). If the sculpture has a distinct common name, like the Bronze Horseman, that should be used." --Another Believer (Talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Afghanistan conflict (1978–present) → ? – Altogether these wars are not all the Afghanistan conflict, but separate conflicts that have taken place in Afghanistan. The way this article and name is set up now makes it look like this is a single conflict. The situation in Afghanistan differs from, say, Colombian conflict. I was thinking of changing to Internal conflict in Afghanistan, as 'Internal' takes into account the smaller regional conflicts that have taken place like the Taliban-ISIL conflict or the border skirmishes. Internal conflict in Myanmar uses this format as well. Additionally I think this article needs a cutting down, since there is so much duplicates with the main articles - it reads almost like History of Afghanistan. Articles like Congolese Civil War and Insurgency in Yemen are simply bulleted lists of separate conflicts that have taken place, just as is the case in Afghanistan. WR 00:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – List of rulers of Wogodogo → List of Mogho Naabas – 1. Wogodogo is no longer used, if anything it should be Ouagadougou, 2. In present day the Mogho Naaba has no political power and only serves as a traditional ruler, the actual rulers of Ouagadougou would include Mayors and such. 3. This list is really a list of those who have held the title "Mogho Naaba" which in fact predates the existence of Ouagadougou. 65sugg (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Flagship Magazine → Flagship (magazine) – Reasons: * http://www.flagshipmagazine.co.uk has back issues, and throughout it's always called Flagship. There are no examples of a proper noun title Flagship Magazine. Other than the domain name itself which I think serves as a disambiguator * The article was once called Flagship magazine with magazine lower case it operates as a disambiguation and those should be in parentheses per dab guidelines. -- GreenC 04:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Exile of Gotabaya Rajapaksa → Flight and resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa – Exile implies a long duration, that has already in progressed or one that is to be expected. So far its only been a week with more developments yet to happen in the coming weeks (His Singapore Visa will run out etc.). The article deals with the inital moments of leaving Sri Lanka and ariving in Singapore and his resignation directly afterwards, therefore we should change the article name to "Flight and Resignation of Gotabaya Rajapaksa". If years go by and he has still not returned to Sri Lanka then we can rename or make an article on his exile. Blackknight12 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka → Browning Pass – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and MOS:SLASH. There are almost no references to this location in media sources, either as "Browning Pass" or as a dual name, but scholarly sources overwhelmingly prefer the proposed title; 25 articles since the name change have used the proposed title, most of which are relevant, while only 8 articles have used both names. Most of these are not relevant, as they are not using a dual name but instead preferring either "Nōti Raureka" or "Browning Pass" and mentioning the other name. No articles use only "Nōti Raureka", so that is not a viable alternative. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

July 19, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Anasol → Sol Escobar – WP:COMMONNAME - the artist has long since left behind her fluffy pop past and her original stage name, and has reinvented herself as a serious alternative music artist. She now works under the name Sol Escobar, as evidenced in numerous reliable publications: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Rukma Roy → Rooqma Ray – [38][39][40] All this sources confirm that 'Rooqma Ray' is more common name than 'Rukma Roy'. The previous RM got declined because no source was provided. I'd move by myself but there's a redirect in Rooqma Ray. DoraShin15, 11:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight – This page has previously been nominated to be moved to The Dark Knight five times, the last of which was in 2013 (nine years ago). In practically all of those discussions, opponents cited WP:RECENTISM as a reason why the page could not be considered a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC yet. It has now been 14 years since The Dark Knight's release, and there should no longer be any doubt that this film is the primary topic of the term The Dark Knight and demonstrates long-term significance, especially considering its numerous accolades and significant cultural impact. The Dark Knight (film) is the most-viewed article on the Dark Knight disambiguation page, and virtually all Google News results for "The Dark Knight" pertain to the film and not the character. Readers who are searching for Batman's alias are also more likely to type in Dark Knight rather than The Dark Knight, and a simple hatnote linking to Batman should be sufficient to address any concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Orchidaceae → Orchid – Second try after the previous discussion above. Orchid is the common name of the plant family in google scholar ([41] [42]). Even the article itself uses orchid more than the technical term. Orchid better satisfies the five WP:CRITERIA: * It is more recognizable than the technical term. * It is more natural. Again, most readers will search using the common, non-techical term. * It is precise enough. Orchid already redirects here and is the clear WP:PrimaryTopic. Saying "orchid can mean other things" goes against primary topic policy, which is a core policy followed by many, many other articles. Like apple, another plant term which is much more ambiguous than orchid, but is also the primary topic. * It is more concise. * It is consistent with other plant taxa like ferns, oaks, cactus and others which use the common, vernacular name rather than the techical one. It is also in line with WP:FLORATITLES, since orchids have an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural role or use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany. Probably the horticultural role is the most prominent, but orchids also have an important cultural role per Orchidaceae#Cultural symbolism. Finally, there was an argument in the previous RM that "not all Orchids are Orchidaceae". Apart from the primary topic policy mentioned above, the dictionary definition is that an orchid is a member of Orchidaceae ([43]). There was also the argument that I need to show all the 28,000 orchid species have "orchid" in their name. But that is obviously impossible to do. And it is not how naming works in general, since all orchids are also monocots, but they are not necessarily called with that name. It fact they are almost never called using that name. To sum up, established policies and guidelines strongly support changing the name to "orchid". Vpab15 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Boston Braves → Boston Braves (disambiguation) – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name. The other three entries include a minor league hockey team that lasted three years and a rugby league team (an exceedingly minor sport in the US) that doesn't even have its own article (the latter essentially is not notable at all). The only one that is remotely as notable is the football team. Which used the name for one year before changing their name. The Washington Commanders are undoubtedly notable, but they are not nearly well known by this name. And not anywhere the primary topic for this name, which is easily most associated with the baseball team. A quick Google search clearly shows as well that the baseball team is the expected result far beyond any of the other entries, which is exactly what PRIMARYTOPIC calls for. (As an aside, the page needs cleanup. Two of the links are redirects, which doesn't meet the diwambiguation page guidelines.) oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

July 18, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Neo-bop jazz → Neo-bop – One, consistency: bebop, hard bop, and post bop all go without the unnecessary "jazz". Two, short, precise titles are better than long ones, as "bop" indicates the music is a genre of jazz. Three, sources such as Allmusic and the NEH use the title. Websites using the "neo-bop jazz" title use the extended title because their content was copied from Wikipedia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ruston (engine builder) → Ruston & Hornsby – This company's history consists of one merger after another followed by name changes so there is no perfect article name here. The current name seems awkward and the proposed name is both a WP:NATURAL disambiguation and comes closer to being WP:COMMONNAME. Within Wikipedia editors show high regard for the proposed name as there are more than a hundred articles pointing to the article through the Ruston & Hornsby redirect and, even amongst articles pointing directly to Ruston (engine builder), many display that link as "Ruston & Hornsby" for readers (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Off Wikipedia it's even more stark, with the following results on Google Advanced Search: the phrase "Ruston & Hornsby" + "engine" gets 32,700 hits (link) while "Ruston" + "engine" without "Hornsby" gets only 389 (link). RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – McKinnon Wood → Thomas McKinnon Wood – Someone has previously redirected Thomas McKinnon Wood to McKinnon Wood, apparently assuming "McKinnon" was his preferred given name. The evidence I have now cited on this page shows that he treated "McKinnon Wood" as a double-barrelled surname, but continued to use Thomas as his given name, and therefore "Thomas McKinnon Wood" is the better common name for the page title. The system won't let me do the move myself, presumably because of the redirect page which already exists at Thomas McKinnon Wood. Stortford (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Captain Britain → Brian Braddock – "Captain Britain" title has been used by a variety of characters (as well as the Captain Britain Corps) and is no longer used by Brian Braddock, who is the subject of this article. This article should be moved to "Brian Braddock," while "Captain Britain" should be either a disambiguation page, or an article about the publication history of the moniker itself (ie: Robin, Captain Marvel, Batgirl, etc.) Pibbs (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fok (surname) → Fok – Fok currently redirects to FOK, but all of the entries there, other than the surname list, are FOKs. A hatnote to FOK could be added to the surname afterward. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pat Spencer (lacrosse) → Pat Spencer – Current title redirects to a minor character from the series General Hospital that doesn't have her own page. Regardless, this article needs to be moved, as this person is now a professional basketball player, so the title should either be at the base name, or at Pat Spencer (basketball). Natg 19 (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

July 17, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Minions (Despicable Me) → Minions (characters) – I would like to revisit the argument I made in the last move discussion ten days ago. These characters have been around for the last twelve years now and at this point "Despicable Me" is not entirely the best modifier anymore, "characters" is more appropriate as these guys are literally promoted everywhere nowadays. JE98 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Substance abuse → Substance addiction – I think the name of this page should be moved to 'Substance addiction'. I feel like the name 'Substance abuse' is biased and implies the person dependent on drugs has done something wrong by being addicted. Furthermore, my concerns are supported by a lot of sourced information already in the article which recommended avoiding the term 'abuse' in contexts like this. Renaming the article and replacing 'abuse' with 'addiction' in similar instances is a good idea from my perspective - not only preventing victim-blaming for people with drug addiction but also making the page neutral - considering the multiple paragraphs talking about criticisms of terms like 'substance abuse'. However, I'm also open to hearing different terms the article should be renamed to that also prevent victim-blaming. Someone might suggest a term better and more medically recommended than the one I've proposed. Stephanie921 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Haim Cohen (chef) → Haim Cohen – The chef's article is new on English Wikipedia. Haim Cohen currently points to a spelling mistake Haim Cohn. Cohn is a dead old judge no one is interested in. On the English Wikipedia he gets 244 views a month [46], and most of that is probably people searching for the chef and wondering why they dialled up this old dead person with the spelling mistake. On the Hebrew Wikipeda Cohn is a bit more popular, with 817 views a month [47]. The chef, who properly spells his name in English as Haim Cohen, unlike the Cohn spelling mistake, get 4,677 views a month [48]. This is a comparison chart of the two in views [49] over many years, even in the TV off season, Cohen has like double or tripe the views, and when one of his TV shows are in season, it's like off the charts. The chef is much much more popular, and also isn't a spelling mistake. לילך5 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chase Parker (golfer) → Chase Parker – Current base "Chase Parker" page is a redirect to another person named "Chasen Parker". I get how the name could be confused, but it makes sense for the actual person with the base name to have the non-disambiguated page. Neither draws significantly many views, typically under ten combined. Neither seems to be the dominant name in this area, either. Debartolo2917 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

July 16, 2022

  • (Discuss) – Girls Like You → Girls like You – Despite of the vote count that took place in 2018, MOS:TITLECAPS is very clear and unequivocal that prepositions four-letters or less should not be capitalised. Many news sources will capitalise, wikipedia is not a news source. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fatimah → Fatima bint Muhammad – Per Albertatiran and Iskandar323 above: though WP:MOSAR allows both "-a" and "-ah" for ta' marbuta, "-a" is used more often both in reliable sources and on Wikipedia. I also think that with very few exceptions such as Muhammad or Ibn Khaldun, WP:SINGLENAME does not apply for articles on historical Arabic figures, whose names are often carried by a large number of famous people with WP articles (unlike, e.g., Aristotles or Ibn Khalduns, there are many famous Fatimas; Muhammad is an exception all of his own in that other parts of his name are rarely ever mentioned: he is rather commonly disambiguated as 'the prophet Muhammad'). Articles like that should rather follow WP:CONCISE, which recommends that for biographical articles, neither a given name nor a family name is usually omitted or abbreviated for concision. Arabic names consist of more than two parts, but I think that WP articles on most Arabic figures should also at least contain a two-part name (kunya + given name, kunya + nisba, given name + nisba, nasab + nisba, given name + nasab, etc., whichever is most commonly used in sources). Given name + nasab sounds about right here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – South Pole Group → South Pole (company) – Full disclosure: I work for South Pole. I am picking up on the move request from 8 November 2018. South Pole has not been known as "South Pole Group" for many years and in the meantime the company has grown significantly and is now one of the dominant players in the voluntary carbon market and in carbon finance more generally. This request is to keep the title of this page appropriately up to date and is not meant for marketing purposes. I agree with previous editors that South Pole the company is clearly not the primary use before the geographic South Pole (I sincerely hope the 2018 attempt at this change was done in error), but I respectfully request a reconsideration to go with South Pole (company) Mberg18 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pray and work → Ora et labora – Originally created Oct 2006 as Ora et labora; 2 sentence stub subsequently redirected to List of Latin phrases. Recreated June 2011 with English translation by user who felt it still deserved its own page. This is the traditional motto of the Benedictines and has been widely adopted by others. Most common usage; nobody uses "pray and work". Manannan67 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Stop the Violence Movement → Self Destruction (song) – The article is currently written as an article on "Self Destruction", the first and only single released by the Stop the Violence Movement, and its title should reflect that. Self-Destruction (song) already redirects to this page, so there doesn't seem to be any need to disambiguate any further than "(song)". I've opted for the spelling "Self Destruction" rather than "Self-Destruction", as the no-hyphen version seems to predominate in the sources. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Catalin Tecuceanu → Cătălin Tecuceanu – Arorae has moved this article twice removing the diacritics from his person's name because he has Italian citizenship or something. I am not sure if there's a policy arguing to remove diacritics from Italian citizens but the fact that he has Italian citizenship doesn't really matter as Tecuceanu has Romanian citizenship too as the article clearly states. I would doubt that there's a Wikipedia policy justifying certain titles based on something as unstable as the country someone is playing for considering that can easily change in the future. In other words, I find Arorae's move unjustified. In the case that anyone is wondering, we can't say much from WP:COMMONNAME. Romanian sources use diacritics while Italian ones don't. Some more international websites don't use them [50] and some do [51]. Super Ψ Dro 07:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – List of equipment of the Ukrainian Ground Forces → List of equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – Reason: The current article is about the equipment used by Ukrainian Ground Forces, but it already mixes up weapons (and quantities) which are used by Ukrainian Air Assault Forces, Ukrainian Naval Infantry, Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine) and Special Operations Forces (Ukraine). It even includes equipment used by Ukrainian Navy and Ukrainian Air Force. I suggest to rename the current article to a more general list concerning the Armed Forces, because: * I don't think it is realistic to reconcile the information by determining which branches use particular equipment. Sources often just announce the transfer to the armed forces, without additional information. Some equipment is used by multiple branches (e.g. SAMs and drones), but it's difficult to reconcile the quantities or which specific variants are used by each branch. * There is a lot of standard issue equipment, so listing them separately for each branch would result in a lot of unnecessary duplication. * IMO, there is little value in trying to differentiate this information. The purpose of such lists is to provide a general overview of the capability of the Armed Forces in question. Also, if known and necessary, it can be mentioned in the notes (e.g. what quantity of Bayraktar TB2s belong to the Air Force and what to the Navy). -- Mindaur (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Abiogenesis → Origin of life – The term "Origin of life" is close to 100 times more commonly used than "Abiogenesis". "Origin of life" gets 176 million ghits, against 1.78 million for "Abiogenesis". Similarly, the Google books Ngram shows that "Origin of life" has always been far more widely used in printed sources; it is considerably older, starting in 1800 rather than around 1870, and its usage has resurged since 1995. In contrast, "Abiogenesis" was most popular around 1891, though still only at about 23% of "Origin of life", and most the time much less than that, for instance in 1980 it was at about 5% of "Origin of life". Google Scholar gives "Origin of life" some 116,000 hits, and "Abiogenesis" some 6,400. Thus both scientists and other authors concur in using "Origin of life" as their preferred term. I therefore propose, per WP:COMMONNAME, that we move the article to "Origin of life". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 11:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lost Decades → Lost Decade (Japan) – No indication that "Lost Decades" in the primary name. Move was started without comment or discussion. intforce (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Ana María Romero de Campero → Ana María Romero – Currently redirects to much less well know person than what most people will be searching. Husband's last name is unnecessary in Campero's article and is usually omitted in common Spanish use, including her Spanish language article. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 17:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Quidditch Changes Name to Quadball". US Quadball. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  2. ^ "IQA Announces Upcoming Change of "Quidditch" to "Quadball"". International Quidditch Association. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  3. ^ "Quidditch changes name to quadball after JK Rowling's trans statements". the Guardian. 2022-07-20. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  4. ^ "It's official: Real-life Quidditch won't be called Quidditch anymore. Here's why". ABC News. 2022-07-21. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  5. ^ Zee, Michaela; Zee, Michaela (2022-07-20). "Quidditch Changes Name to Quadball Following J.K. Rowling's Trans Comments". Variety. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  6. ^ "Quidditch changes name to distance itself from 'Harry Potter' author J.K. Rowling". NBC News. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  7. ^ CNN, Scottie Andrew. "Quidditch is changing its name to quadball to cut ties with J.K. Rowling". CNN. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  8. ^ Pisani, Joseph (2022-07-20). "Quidditch Ditches 'Harry Potter' and J.K. Rowling, Rebrands Itself 'Quadball'". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2022-07-21.
  9. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/business/lobby-group-london-first-renames-itself-businessldn-after-30-years-b1011843.html
  10. ^ O'Hara, James E.; Cerretti, Pierfilippo; Pape, Thomas; Evenhuis, Neal L. (2011). "Nomenclatural Studies Toward a World List of Diptera Genus-Group Names. Part II: Camillo Rondani" (PDF). Zootaxa. 3141: 1–268.
Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 23rd Infantry Division (United States) → Americal Division – WP:COMMONNAME. Page was at Americal Division until it was moved without discussion in 2008. The official World War II history of the division, US Army sources, and even the official division reports overwhlemingly use the name Americal Division rather than its numerical designation. The division veterans organization is named Americal Division veterans. Wikipedia policy discourages use of the official name of a subject in cases where the official name is not the most common name of the subject, see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. However, given the use in official sources published by the division of Americal Division as its name, it is questionable whether 23rd Infantry Division even has dominance as the official name. For example, a newspapers.com search of American newspapers from 1968 to 1971 gives 44k hits for Americal Division and only 3k matches for 23rd Infantry Division. Press coverage of My Lai, which the division received the most coverage for, mostly does not even mention the numerical division of the unit and refers to it solely as Americal. This would seem to be overwhelming evidence that Americal Division was the common name during Vietnam despite the official numbering. Our article should be at the most common name for the unit regardless of an insistence on strictly adhering to official nomenclature even when the latter is relatively rarely used. Kges1901 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2009 Temple Mount clashes → 2009 Al-Aqsa clashes – Per section above, the majority of independent RS refer to these clashes as being in relation to Al-Aqsa; currently, the article originally relied entirely on two one Israeli source, Ynet. and Jerusalem Post Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bat Mitzvah massacre → Bat Mitzvah attack – The only reliable source that refers to this as a massacre is the Independent but only in the headline and not in the article body and headlines are not a reliable source per WP:HEADLINES. Within the article body it is described as an attack and the the other source given in support of the naming also describes it as an attack. Thus reliable sources do not refer to this event as a massacre. An editor previously attempted this move in 2021 but was reverted as "undiscussed", so here is the required discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sega 3D Classics Collection → Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives – This page is currently structured as a page for the game "Sega 3D Classics Collection", that happens to also cover "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" and "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives 3: Final Stage". I think it would be better structured as a page about the video game series "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" that covers all three equally, rather than emphasizing the only game with an English release so strongly. In that case, the title "Sega 3D Fukkoku Archives" would also be more appropriate, as this is common to the titles of all three games in the series. SnorlaxMonster 14:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cesaro (wrestler) → Claudio Castagnoli – It's his real name, the name he has used everywhere except WWE, and we can't be married to the WWE name forever. Vjmlhds 12:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Battle of the Siverskyi Donets → May 2022 battle of the Donets – The last RM has ended in nothing, but I still argue that the title is not precise and that there's far better possible options. We are already in late June and I haven't seen this event receiving much attention lately. I think people in a few years could see the current title and not be sure what to expect. It could be an article about WW2, the 2014 war, the 2022 invasion, maybe even some Mongol invasion. So it is clear that there's basis for calling this a battle and not an incident or similar. A "near Bilohorivka" type of title is also problematic since the article has been expanded ever since the last RM was started and it now includes other attempted crossings on other villages not particularly less notable than Bilohorivka. Thus, I propose May 2022 battle of the Donets. The month of May has passed and I believe there have not been other notable events at the river during the invasion, so adding the month and year to the title would suffice for precision. Adding only the year would not be enough as I can tell from memory right now that on April there was fighting going on in the river after the Russians won in Izium. I would also like to drop "Siverskyi" from the current title as the river's name in Wikipedia is Donets. Furthermore, "Siverskyi Donets" is the name in Ukrainian but the river also passes through Russia. May 2022 battle at the Donets is another option, less proper name-like and more natural, and it could enter into consideration. However, I don't want this RM to end in no consensus again so I will not be striving too hard for this, and "May 2022 battle of the Donets" remains as the primary proposal. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also