Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Moving articles)
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

"WP:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. See also Category:Requests to move a userspace draft.
Click here to purge this page
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by RMCD bot (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

Contents
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 our article titling policy and our guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the [move] tab located at the top of any page to perform most moves (see Wikipedia:Moving 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 (for instance, a page may exist with the desired title). In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page. To request such help, please see #Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus. To place a formal request for a potentially controversial page move, please see #Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (non-confirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures.1 Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

To contest a close, the Move review process is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

  1. ^ Note to closers: according to an ArbCom ruling of June 2009, confirmed in September 2011, discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles (Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation)) must occur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, unless it is agreed there to hold the discussion elsewhere. Any requested move affecting these articles that is opened on the article talk pages or any other venue should be speedily closed, with a pointer to the ArbCom ruling.

When not to use this page

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

Requesting technical moves

Shortcut:

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself. If you cannot, request it below.

If any of the following apply to the desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • 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.

If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.) If you are unable to revert, request it below.

To list new technical requests use the following code at the bottom of the sub-section "Technical requests" immediately below:

{{subst:RMassist|old page name, without brackets|requested name, without brackets|reason for move}}

This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.

If you object to a proposal listed in Technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below.

If your technical request is contested by another editor, remove the request from the "Contested technical requests" section and follow the instructions at Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Alternatively, if the only obstacle to a technical move is another page in the way (e.g., a redirect to the current title of the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history -- if it has a single history line, see WP:MOR instead), add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:

{{db-move|page to be moved here|reason for move}}

This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcut:

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see #Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one move request on the same article talk page, as this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page.

Requesting a single page move

(To propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, create a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

== Requested move ==
{{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 present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page. The talk page section does not necessarily need to be named "Requested move", though it is suggested. If there have been previous move discussions on the talk page, use == Requested move xxxx == where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion. Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically.

As an alternative, you can click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and insert

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move", along with a location for survey and discussion. Also note that the template must be substituted. The template will automatically include your signature.

Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, as the nomination itself indicates what their opinion is. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion. If as nominator you feel the need to explicitly bullet point your opinion (e.g. to add a personal observation that isn't part of the formal nomination rationale, or because you no longer agree with the nomination but it is already supported by other parties and can't really be retracted), do so with "as nominator", e.g.  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...

Requesting multiple page moves

Up to 30 related moves may be requested at once, using a single template. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for two page moves is shown here. For three page moves, add lines for current3 and new3, following this pattern. This template does not work properly with some titles - if you have trouble, eliminate the current1 line and start with new1.

==Requested move==
{{subst:move-multi
| current1 = Current title of page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| new1 = New title for page 1
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| 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 default to Google Books or Google New Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.

}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, replacing current1 with Wikipedia and current2 with Wiki. Note that the discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at current1. 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.

Note: Nominators should usually not add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, as the nomination itself indicates what their opinion is. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion. If as nominator you feel the need to explicitly bullet point your opinion (e.g. to add a personal observation that isn't part of the formal nomination rationale, or because you no longer agree with the nomination but it is already supported by other parties and can't really be retracted), do so with "as nominator", e.g.  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...

Current discussions

This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.
Do not attempt to edit this list manually; a bot will automatically update the page soon after the {{subst:Requested move}} or {{subst:Move-multi}} template is added to the discussion on the relevant talk page. The entry is removed automatically when the discussion is closed.
To make a change to an entry, make the change on the linked talk page.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format.

May 25, 2013

  • (Discuss) – GameCube → Nintendo GameCube – As noted above, the name of this console is the Nintendo GameCube, not merely "GameCube". See Nintendo.com List of Systems; note that, unlike "Wii" or "Game Boy Advance", the console is called "Nintendo GameCube", akin to the "Super NES" and "Nintendo 64". See also the official Nintendo GameCube logo, which is used at the top of this very article in the infobox. Furthermore, previous consensus—established during a previous move request—was that this article should be named "Nintendo GameCube". However, a user moved this article to the present title a few months ago unilaterally, ignoring the consensus without discussion. This article should thus be returned to its former, correct, consensus-supported title. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 24, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism) – This topic is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "avatar", and so I am proposing moving the dab page to the plain name. The film got 272674 views in April, while this page got 58437 views. The computing use got even fewer views. The argument could be made that the film is the primary topic, but I'm not making that argument, as there is too much history and too many other uses associated with the term. B2C 06:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm striking "certainly" from my original language above, as this topic does arguably meet the long-term significance criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, the film clearly meets the usage criterion. Giving due weight to both criteria indicates there is no primary topic for this term, and so the dab page should be at the base name. --B2C 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Genital modification and mutilation → genital modification – Modification is the more inclusive term, we can make a note about modifications being considered 'mutilation' in specific circumstances. This move would be a close cognate to body modification (which is redirected to from body alteration and body mutilation, I guess that makes redirecting to genital alteration an option too... and there is no body modification and mutilation silliness). Right now, this article doesn't do anything to explain the difference in nouns except for a brief "any of these procedures may be considered modifications or mutilations by different groups of people." in the intro. The only mention of 'mutilation' in this article is self-mutilation and FGM. We have male genital mutilation redirecting which is misleading because 'mutilate' is a word that doesn't even appear in the 'male genitals' section. To present this neutrally, we should describe all procedures inclusively as 'modification' and then make a note of popular terms like FGM being used for certain groupings of them. Ranze (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Fox Nation → Fox Nation – Our article, other sources, and the website itself seem to agree that the name of the site is Fox Nation, not The Fox Nation. As far as I can tell, "The Fox Nation" seems to be used less commonly to refer to the community that gathers at the site, not the site itself. For example, from http://nation.foxnews.com/our-purpose: "The Fox Nation is committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news...We invite all Americans who share these values to join us here at Fox Nation." Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sparkasse Hagen → Sparkasse Hagen office tower – "Sparkasse Hagen" is the name of the bank, not of the building, which was called "Long Oskar" (de:Langer Oskar). This building was an office tower of the still existing de:Sparkasse Hagen (www.sparkasse-hagen.de), and only one of several buildings they own (or formerly owned). I assume the current title of the english article was chosen because of the pages which are linked as references. But these pages only use the "Sparkasse Hagen" heading as they do for many other buildings where there is no "given name" for a building, so they use the owners name. The current situation with the "Sparkasse Hagen" article title is misleading. It is like writing about a special destroyed building of the Bank of England (not about the bank itself), but using "Bank of England" as the title. So I think the best title for the article is "Sparkasse Hagen office tower" or shorter "Sparkasse Hagen tower" if you don't want to use the german name "Langer Oskar". Holger1959 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Encyclopædia Britannica → Encyclopaedia Britannica – In the 21st century the usual British spelling of the American "Encyclopaedia" is "Encyclopaedia". The spelling of this title is anachronistic and seems to be used because it is the spelling used by the organisation that owns the trademark. The Wikipedia article title policy has a section on this WP:TITLETM ("Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark"). It is not clear to me that using "Encyclopædia Britannica" instead of "Encyclopaedia Britannica" meets this requirement. -- PBS (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Viable system model → Viable System Model – Proper noun is required to distinguish the subject of this article from the generalised phrase. Existing name is ambiguous between two concepts (a specific model and the general concept of such a model). It is necessary to change the name to preserve the subject (see WP:CAPS) and it is the term used by sources when referred to the subject (the common name, see WP:TITLE). This is the necessary level of precision required to not be ambiguous. Rushyo Talk 11:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Godhra train burning → Godhra train massacre – Common usage and other reasons stated below. Note: The renaming discussion has already started before this procedural formalities took place. Hence including the move template in the same discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Somerset → Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence – The title of Duchess outranks Countess. Once she became Duchess she retained the title until her death. Several Lady Margaret Beaufort (her granddaughter) biographies refer to her as Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence. Also, there are several other Margaret Beauforts'; her daughter and granddaughter are both Lady Margaret Beaufort. Sources: DNB calls her Holland, Margaret, Duchess of Clarence; Michael Jones "The King's Mother" states Margaret Holland, Duchess of Clarence; etc. Lady Meg (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 4 Elements → 4 Elements (album) – The phrase "4 elements" is merely an alternate way of writing "four elements", and the primary topic of this phrase is the concept of the four classical elements—for which this album was no doubt named. Currently "four elements" redirects as expected, but "4 elements" (regardless of capitalization) does not. I'd like to remedy this. Xiaphias (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Guava → Psidium – The primary topic of Guava is the fruit of the species Psidium guajava. "Guava" should either redirect to Psidium guajava, or be the title of an article on that species. The content of this article is about the Psidium genus of plants. No other species of Psidium is cultivated on the scale of P. guajava. One other species in the guava genus, Psidium cattleianum is naturalized (and may be more common) in English speaking areas surrounding the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii). I'd like to hear opinions from Pacific editors, but it seems to me that "guava" means "Psidium guajava". If this move passes, I intend to propose moving Psidium guajava to Guava Plantdrew (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jambul → Syzygium cumini – Move to scientific name per WP:FLORA. The article currently lists 39 common names in 15+ languages for this plant, and it has been subject to previous edit wars over which common names should be listed. There isn't a neutral, universal common name title possible for this article; the scientific name is neutral and universal Plantdrew (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 23, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Extras → Extras (TV series) – Clearly not the primary topic. Extras should redirect to the disambiguation page extra, though I could be persuaded to send it straight to extra (actor). There was a WP:RM 7 years ago that decisively went in favor of the title I propose, but unfortunately someone unilaterally moved the page anyway sometime in the meanwhile. Red Slash 22:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Deaf Jam (2011 Documentary) → Deaf Jam – Requesting a name change due to issues of precision, as explained in the naming convention policies and guidelines. The old title, Deaf Jam (2011 Documentary), is too precise, while the proposed title, Deaf Jam, is precise enough to unambiguously indicate the topic, as it is the title of the film discussed in the article. According to a search of wikipedia, there is no article currently existing with that name, although the search redirects to Def Jam Recordings, which is an entirely different article title, with an essentially different spelling. The spelling of each title is fundamental to the content of the article, and as the they do not overlap, Deaf Jam, should be a legitimate title for this article. Madebyhand (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chromatics → Chromatics_(band) – I request that the article Chromatics, concerning the band by that name, be renamed to Chromatics_(band). This is in preparation for my publishing a new article about the company Chromatics, a manufacturer of color graphics display computers. I would name that article Chromatics_(computer_manufacturer) and request that both be placed into the Chromatic disambiguation page. Rdb112 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Chak De! India → Chakde! India – Some sources say "Chak De", some say "Chakde". Can any Indian give any insight into which it's more likely to be? IMDB says Chakde[8], as does Amazon[9]. So does this Times of India review[10]. There are lots of other sources that also say Chakde. On the poster/cover CHAK and DE are in different colors, but are right next to each other like they are one word. Thoughts? Film Fan 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Korat, Thailand → Nakhon Ratchasima – Reverting undiscussed move. Nakhon Ratchasima is the city's official and widely recognised name. Its colloquial name, Khorat (โคราช), is also common, but I don't believe it is so overwhelmingly more common that it should be preferred to the official name. Not having a (city) disambiguator is in line with most other articles on Thai provincial capitals. Also, the name โคราช may be spelled Khorat according to the official Royal Thai General System of Transcription, or Korat, which is non-standard but may or may not be more common. The Google test is unhelpful here since results are polluted by the cat. Paul_012 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Vaikunta Ekadashi → Vaikuntha Ekadashi – This is a Sanskrit name for Fesival which is spelled as "Vaikuntha Ekadashi". Looks like this page was accidentally named 'Vaikunta Ekadashi' Which is wrong. The word is derrived from Vaikuntha (Sanskrit वैकुंठ, vaikuṃṭha) Nagarjuna198 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović – per Anne M. Todd Venus and Serena Williams 2009 Page 92. (Please note that this is the only diacritic-removed biography of a living European person on en.wp and that no green card or dual nationality issues are involved) Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Female genital mutilation → Female genital modification and mutilation – A precident is set to talk about the concepts of modification and mutilation collectively with the "genital modification and mutilation" article which links this as a main article. It appears that the terms modification and mutilation are often used to describe to identical procedures depending on whether or not a person consented to or is happy with the procedure. To be impartial, and keep a common format between our articles, the "M&M" wording should be used consistently. To be NPOV, we should neither assert a specific procedure as modifying or mutilating in nature, as that is something people can make their minds up about based on contrast claims by disagreeing parties who speak on the issue. Ranze (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lauren Carpenter → Lauren Turner – Turner is her surname on the show now. Frequent editors of Neighbours articles know this. There are plenty of reliable sources out there that mention this name (including the show's official website and closing credits). 0z (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Autonomous car → Driverless car – The "autonomous car" article was created and titled in 2003, when such cars were still essentially science fiction. The article included other terms not commonly used today, such as "autopilot car" and "autodrive car." Even then, however, the article used "driverless" more often than any other term. Since then, the term "driverless car" has become the most common term to refer to these vehicles. Google Trends shows a clear preference for "driverless car" among the public when performing web searches. But currently, searching for "driverless car" first brings up a Wikipedia page on the Google driverless car instead of the general subject. On Google News, driverless car appears significantly more common than autonomous car, though the article count can swing by entire orders of magnitude when simply advancing to the next page of results, suggesting no one count is reliable. This Wikipedia article claims without sourcing that "driverless" is an informal term. I don't know what determines general formality or informality, but formality isn't what Wikipedia's naming conventions aim for, anyway. Instead, they prefer common terms over technical ones, and natural, recognizable titles, as well. The talk page entry just above this one suggests "autonomous" may in fact be too technical for some, as editors are confusing "autonomous" with "automatic." "Driverless" may more clearly evoke the type of cars we're talking about, and may better be "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize," as the guidelines suggest. Pdxuser (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Racha (film) → Rachcha – Many References call it 'Rachcha' and some references in this article dont seem to be valid. This article should be changed from 'Racha' to 'Rachcha' see(Google Search for 'Racha'[11]) (Google Search for 'Rachcha'[12]) Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Gabriele d'Annunzio → Gabriele D'Annunzio – * the most used spelling has a capitalized D. See the same lead of the article ("Gabriele D'Annunzio....sometimes spelled d'Annunzio") the Italian wikipedia page, IMDB ([13]), the Encyclopædia Britannica ([14]), the Enciclopedia Treccani ([15]), the McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of world drama, the Merriam-Webster encyclopaedia ([16]), the Encyclopedia of World Biography ([17]), The Columbia encyclopedia of modern drama, The Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire, almost all the monographies about him (eg Gabriele D'Annunzio: Poet of Beauty and Decadence, Gabriele D'Annunzio: Studio Critico, Gabriele D' Annunzio: Defiant Archangel, Gabriele D'Annunzio: le immagini di un mito, Gabriele D'Annunzio in France, Gabriele D'Annunzio by Charles Klopp) etc. etc. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Chicago PD → Chicago PD (TV series) – When readers think of Chicago PD, they think of the Chicago Police Department, not a TV series that hasn't even premiered yet. The title of this article should include "TV series", to reinforce the idea that the show is fiction, and not the actually police department. An example of this would be, N.Y.P.D. (TV series), and NYPD.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Deadmau5 → Deadmaus – To be moved as per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration." Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – RK Celje Pivovarna Laško → RK Celje – The club's name is RK Celje, with Pivovarna Laško being solely the main sponsor of the club. Some Wiki examples show that the use of the article's name does not change with new sponsors and I think the sponsorship name can be explained in the lead (e.g. Slovenian PrvaLiga, Serie B etc.). Also, the club was founded in 1947 and Pivovarna Laško did not became the main sponsor until 1990. In addition, the official website of RK Celje is rk-celje.si. Ratipok (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sri Pada → Adam's Peak – back to the former title per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. Adam's Peak is the most common English name, with 425,000 google results versus 186,000 for "Sri Pada". In addition, almost all English guide books use the name Adam's Peak. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC). Zanhe (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mary C. Cain → Mary Cain – A simple google search showed this Mary Cain has more nobility compared with another Mary Cain born 1904 (I already move her name to "Mary Cain (politician)". Removed middle initial because she's not widely known with that characteristic. Philipmj24 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Han Chinese clothing → Hanfu – The article ought to be moved to the proper title "Hanfu", which is the name by which the topic is most-commonly known. Currently, this article uses an unnecessary descriptive title, which was decided about 9 years ago. Googlebooks [23] vs [24] / JSTOR [25] vs [26] / Ngram [27] -- Cold Season (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18, 2013

  • (Discuss) – Sign "O" the Times → Sign o' the Times – These articles were moved with little discussion, against the usual style and naming guidelines, and against the prevailing typography in sources, too. Here the "o'" is an abbreviation of "of" and should be treated as such, as in [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Considering the number of possibilities of case, single-v-double, one-v-two quotes, the fact that about half of all books use the way that makes sense with respect to the meaning and normal title orthography is pretty clear evidence that it is not just acceptable, but widely preferred; the fact the WP has guidelines like MOS:CT and MOS:TM that suggest an English-like rendering with normal case makes it clear what WP prefers. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Nanjing Road (Shanghai) → Nanjing Road – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nanjing Road was formerly a disambiguation page which I converted to a redirect because Nanjing Road in Shanghai, one of the most famous streets in China, is clearly the primary topic. A google search of "nanjing road shanghai" returns 2,590,000 results, whereas "nanjing road taipei" returns 366,000. If you only search for "nanjing road" without the city name, almost all results in the first few pages are about the street in Shanghai. In addition, Nanjing Road (Shanghai) receives about 200 views a day, while Nanjing Road (Taipei) gets less than 10. Zanhe (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss) – Tech N9ne → Tech Nine – To be moved as per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sunn O))) → Sunn (band) – To be moved as per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." Sunn O))) is pronounced simply "sun" - the O))) is a typographical representation of the sun; an unpronounced purely decorative special character, and in fact an abstract image. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Restless (Faye Wong album) → ? – Even after failed attempts to change the title to pinyin title, I am still not confident that this album should stay as Restless. Fuzao (浮躁; lit. "float mania", according to Bing Translator) would mean many things, like Exasperation, Anxiety, or Impatience. However, if Fuzao (or Fuzao (album)) is not the title that others are favoring in, perhaps choose either Exasperation (album), Anxiety (Faye Wong album), Impatience (album), or another faithful, suitable name. As for common use of either name, amount of sources is scarce, and translated names are rarely used. Recent articles may have used Wikipedia as a translator, so let's not rely on them (yet). George Ho (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Shin Dong-hyuk (human rights activist) → Shin Dong-hyuk – I had heard of Shin Dong-hyuk (born Shin In Geun) even before reading Blaine Harden's book, and after I have begun to read it, I've become even more astonished with this guy. I think he's far more notable than the South Korean footballer or the fictional character. Therefore he deserves the primary use of the article title "Shin Dong-hyuk". JIP | Talk 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC) JIP | Talk 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Boeing 377 → Boeing 377 Stratocruiser – Since the last time this page was moved to the proposed title, then moved back, the general consensus for aircraft article titling has changed from "manufacturer and model" to "manufacturer, model and name". Therefore I believe it would be appropriate per both WP:AIR naming standards and WP:COMMONNAME for the full name of the aircraft to be used. The Bushranger One ping only 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sotah → ordeal of the bitter water – restore to "ordeal of the bitter water" the term found in Jacob Neusner The Theology of the halakhah 2001 Page 107 and other English-language scholarly sources relating both to original context in Numbers 5 and also to commentary on Numbers 5 in the Talmud. Sotah should move to redirect as Sotah (Talmud) already does to Tractate 7 of Nashim, no need for disambiguation as no other meaning of Sotah (Hebrew = "wayward wife") in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Anti-Christian violence in India → Persecution of Christians in India – The scope needs to be broadened to integrate the other incidents of intolerance and discrimination which were not necessarily violent in nature. BTW, Nobody could possibly say that it is not violence to burn or rape somebody. But it is after all triggered by and often condoned because of something more ingrained, that is hatred and intolerance. Violence is just one of many things that may originate from religious bigotry and intolerance against Christians. "Intolerance against Christians in India" is a broader topic and would include violence, intolerance. Only focusing on the violence while ignore the underlying manifestations of intolerance would not conducive for the development of the article.

    P.S. I am all for a move to Persecution of Christians in India (redirects to here) if one doesn't like the word "Intolerance". Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Updated to avoid redundant comments (esp. from Darkness Shines) on the minutiae of the semantics. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • (Discuss) – Hoyle's fallacy → Hoyle's argument – I apologize for bringing this up again, but I believe that the title "Hoyle's fallacy" is non-neutral since not everyone agrees that Hoyle's argument was fallacious. Here is my evidence:*In his book The Fifth Miracle, physicist Paul Davies cites Hoyle's argument and seems to agree with it.*The Biological Universe by Steven J. Dick notes Hoyle's argument and says that Francis Crick held a similar although more moderate view and that according to Robert Shapiro, Hoyle's estimate of the probability of life forming was actually too high, following Harold J. Morowitz. For these reasons, it seems to me that some people accept Hoyle's line of reasoning, and so we should choose a more neutral title for this article. For what its worth, I also object to the statement "Who cares what biochemists think" made by User:Michael C Price on this talk page - biochemistry is actually quite relevant to the study of abiogenesis. Cerebellum (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – C.O.P.S. → ? – I am not convinced that this title is unambiguous enough to distinguish itself from Cops (TV series), even with periods (.) between letters. Amazon, IMDB, DVD Verdict, and The Trades refer the show as "C.O.P.S." However, DVD Talk does not use periods, and neither did the show itself, especially during opening titles. Searching for the show is difficult in Google News, and adding more terms, like "1988", or changing them into another term, like CyberCOPS, won't make any difference, even when they narrow results. I don't know which policy or guideline to refer besides WP:AT and MOS:CAPS, but perhaps move this page to COPS (1988 TV series)? George Ho (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Star Blazers 2199 → Space Battleship Yamato 2199 – This show is not called Star Blazers 2199. It is Space Battleship Yamato 2199. To call it otherwise is incorrect information. As of yet, there is no American version of this show, and if there is, there's no guarantee that it's going to be called Star Blazers.Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, It should be given the correct title . Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Enelsonian (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Carboniferous limestone → Carboniferous Limestone – This article is not simply about limestone of Carboniferous age - such an article would be of limited merit. Rather it is about the specific rock unit long recognised in Britain which is now formally accorded the status of supergroup1. As such it constitutes a proper name - an alternative (and more formal) title would be Carboniferous Limestone Supergroup but that would be cumbersome for the wider WP readership and mention of that name is best made within the body text of the article, as with the older name 'CL Series' Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Geopersona (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Red Sorghum Clan → Red Sorghum – "Red Sorghum" is the title appearing on the front and back covers of this book and on pages 1 and 2 in its official English translation. Alternatively, "Red Sorghum: A Tale of China" is the title appearing on page 3 and on Amazon. "Red Sorghum Clan" appears to be Gothicartech's translation. "Red Sorghum" is also the title of a movie which is based on this book, but this monir ambiguity should not cause problems on wikipedia. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 86.143.192.66 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dende (disambiguation) → Dende – Searching for "dende" on WP currently takes the reader directly to an article on a Japanese cartoon (List of Dragon Ball characters), to the section dedicated to a character named "Dende". This is a problem. Dendê is (evidently) the Portuguese word for palm, and "dendê oil" is palm oil. Penelope Cruz (playing a Brazilian character) mentions "dende oil" (spelled that way in the subtitles) in the English-language movie Woman on Top; because I'd never heard of it, I came here to find out what it is. It took me quite a bit of hunting to find that it's the same as palm oil. Searching WP for "dendê" correctly takes the reader to the Palm oil article. Because the character ê is not easy to type on an English language keyboard, "Dende" should be a dab page, giving the reader an opportunity to go to either of these two articles (or any others that may include "dende", "dendê" or any other spelling). Jim10701 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Vuelve (album) → Vuelve – Back in 2009 User:Renné move this album page from Vuelve to Vuelve (album) with no edit summary. Generally it is correct if there is a valid reason, like a dab page, but it was not the case. Vuelve redirected to Vuelve (album) until Max24 created a dab page with two links (WP:TWODABS), one about the album and one about the song from this album. Today I added two other songs with no article (WP:NSONGS). This album seems to be the primary topic, in English, of the Spanish word "Vuelve" (translated as "[You] come back"). Relisted. Favonian (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Zhu Wen (Later Liang) → Zhu Quanzhong – While arguably Zhu Wen was the more well-known name, naming the article Zhu Quanzhong has the benefit of avoiding disambiguation — plus, that was the name he used for virtually his entire military career. An alternative is to move the article to Zhu Wen (displacing the disambiguation page), as this emperor/general, rather than the movie director, would clearly be the primary meaning of "Zhu Wen." Nlu (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Visual perception → Sight – WP:UCN and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Sight" means visual perception far far far far far far before any other possibility. I mean, check out that disambiguation page. So there's no primary topic question, really, this is basically just a UCN issue. I believe the common name in English used in basically every field is "sight" for the ability to perceive light. Red Slash 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – User:Ranze/Child genital mutilation → genital mutilation of children – At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby genital mutilation some critics brought up that the phrase I chose for this article's subject is not common enough. This appears to be a somewhat valid criticism. While I found several sources of this phrase, it is mostly on forums rather than cited works. I have added several references to support 3 alternate titles, one of which I am highlighting here. I believe 'children' is most common and the ideal, although other phrases like 'infant' or 'minor' have also been used in academic works. I believe that if this is moved, it would be more proper. In fact since I'm the only one who has contributed content, I am tempted to just make this move if it will avoid the deletion. Is that okay to do, moving while nomination is in process? Ranze (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tank truck → Tanker truck – Apparently, this is the U.S. name for a tanker truck. I disagree. I'm not a good source of information in every single situation, but I can say this--this American would never call a tanker truck a "tank truck" and definitely doesn't think most Americans do either. "Tank trucks", umm, I dunno, carry tanks? Red Slash 02:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Evolution of cooperation → The Evolution of Cooperation – This article covers the book (and preceeding paper) titled The Evolution of Cooperation, and the theory and experimental results expounded therein. It doesn't really cover the entire field. Therefore, it's more appropriate to name the article after the book. I'm aware that it was previously moved from the target title, but I consider that a mistake. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kutenai people → Ktunaxa – This was moved by a speedy and without an RM in June 2011, which apparently was done without reviewing the previous RM from 2009. As with others like Lillooet people and Thompson people, COMMONNAME and ENGLISH were cited as reasons, by ENGLISH does not apply, CANENGL does, and though this involves Montana and Idaho, the term "Ktunaxa" is accepted and used by the people in question there, though they do use the American English adaptation "Kootenai" (also used for the river on that side of the border); they also use "Ksanka". Ktunaxa is the preference of their pan-border organization, and is the norm for these people in English in Canada now, and the accepted standard. As for "COMMONNAME" there are 69,700 hits for "Ktunaxa" and only 12,600 for "Kutenai people", whereas the alternate spelling "Kootenai people" gets only 9,050 results. It's also used in the name of the group's online presence and is their official name and their own preference. Imposing a name on them without considering this was more than a bit colonialist and that should always be a consideration when writing/naming any article on indigenous peoples. This will also impact Category:Ktunaxa as has also been the risk/reality with such main-article changes. Impacts on categories are supposed to be considered when making a speedy; it was clearly not here, as with the other parallel cases, and the previous RM demonstrates citations which established the Ktunaxa name properly, but was ignored. Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – List of historical drama films → List of historical films – While the term "historical drama film" can be valid, I think the term "historical film" has much more common use. Searching the current term in Google Books does not show many good results. When one searches for the proposed term, there are numerous results, even books with "historical film" in the title. It is the same case when looking in Google Scholar and Amazon.com. I think "film" in "historical drama film" was an excessive modifier since "historical drama" can refer to a film (though not always). However, just "historical drama" already refers to historical fiction, which makes sense as a broad topic. That leaves "historical film" as the best option. I think it is beneficial to shorten the term to both be more concise and to be more in line with reliable sources. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Thompson people → Nlaka'pamux – This move was done by a speedy change, not by RM, with COMMONNAME and ENGLISH being used as the reasons. But CANENGL applies on Canadian English articles on Canadian topics, and "Nlaka'pamux" is now the standard in Canadian English, and like other indigenous endonyms in Canada is now the expected norm. Unlike the parallel RMs at Lillooet people/St'at'imc and Chilcotin people/Tsilhqot'in, where there is a marked difference in google results, the difference in google results here is marginal, though still in favour of Nlaka'pamux, which gets 28,200 results vs for "Thompson people" there are 28,000 - but a glance at the first page of that search demonstrates that not all of those are about these people. I don't have t ime at the moment to search on media sources such as the Vancouver Sun or The Tyee, which are in British Columbia, or in the Globe and Mail....but I know the results will overwhelmingly favour "Nlaka'pamux"....as do the people themselves. Also leaving this article the way it is will inevitably bring about a CfD, even a CFDS, to Category:Thompson people from the current Category:Nlaka'pamux. It says right on the "move" page that impacts on categories and other articles should be kept in mind; here they weren't.` Skookum1 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Shuswap people → Secwepemc – This move was made in error, as "Shuswap people" is NOT the COMMONNAME usage and CANENGL applies, not ENGLISH in its global context. "Secwepemc" is now the standard in Canadian English, and is regularly used by major media and local media as well as academia and by the peoples/governments/organizations themselves, as can be seen in the cites. A google search for "Secwepemc" yields 83,900 results while for "Shuswap people" yields 4,780 results. Indigenous endonyms are now the norm in Canadian English and the expected standard. Skookum1 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lillooet people → St'at'imc – User:Kwamikagami was in error about COMMONNAME and ENGLISH. CANENGL applies on Canadian articles, and "St'at'imc" is the modern standard and accepted usage for this people...including by themselves. As for the COMMONNAME part, "St'at'imc" (without quotes, or else the result is 26,000,000) yields 200,000 results, "Lillooet people" yields only 5,130. The other problem with the current title is it will cause complications if someone tries to move the category associated with these people to "Lillooet", as has already come up in a CfR opposing my contention it should be Category:St'at'imc. "St'at'imc" is what you will find in media coverage, in academia, in the publications from the people themselves, generally without the diacriticals, just those in the Halkomelem version of "Sto:lo" are omitted, other than the colon. What I'm saying, also is that this IS English. Canadian English. CANENGL applies, and "strong national sentiment" also. Skookum1 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chilcotin people → Tsilhqot'in – Moving this to its current title in June 2011 was not only controversial, and should have been a proper RM rather than a speedy move (by User:Kwamikagami as was the case. He cited COMMONNAME and ENGLISH as the rationale, but the latter does not apply, as CANENGL applies (whatever the proper wiki-shorthand for "using Canadian English in Canadian articles", and "Tsilhqot'in" is now the standard in Canadian English and is so-used by the media and both local and national media to refer to these people; it's also obviously used on most of the cites given, including the Tsilhqot'in National Government's webpage at http://www.tsilhqotin.ca. It doesn't matter if the ethnolinguistic community outside of Canada see "Chilcotin" as the most common name; it's not in Canada, and is considered by the people themselves "a white man's usage".....they also use it to distinguish themselves from the other uses of Chilcotin. If this name change stands - and it never should have been allowed IMO - then the complications of renaming Category:Tsilhqot'in will follow, as they have for what is now Category:Squamish; perhaps the templates have also been affeced, which means TfDs...all because someone pulled a speedy without considering the consequences, and by mis-citing COMMONNAME and ENGLISH....ever heard of MOSFOLLOW? This is not the only case of such ill-advised and arbitrary imposition of "outside language" on Canadian topics, particularly on FN/indigenous topics. Indigenous endonyms are now common fare in Canadian English and are, in fact, the expected standard. Oh, for the sake of argument, the google stats for "Tshilhqot'in" are phttps://www.google.co.th/search?q=tsilhqot'in&aq=f&oq=tsilhqot'in&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.4644&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 42,700] - for "Chilcotin people" they're only 6,740. Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Coronation of the French monarch → Coronations in France – - Consorts (queens) and heirs aparent were also crowned, not just monarchs (kings). The article already describes the coronation of the king and of the heir apparent, though we only have a sentence about the coronation of the queen. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The International (Dota 2 competition) → The International (tournament) – - "Tournament" is a far more fitting title than "Dota 2 competition"; the latter detail is already included in the text of this article, removing the necessity of having it in the name, which makes this seem more like a news article than an encyclopedic page. Also, "The International" is already easily-recognizable with Dota 2, leaving the nature of the name an inherent given. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:43, 09 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Brand New → Brand New (disambiguation) – So, it's been just over a month since the move was made, and the post-move stats clearly show that the band is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "brand new", and so the previous move should be reversed. Article traffic stats show that in the last 30 days, Brand New (the current disambiguation page) had 28,346 visitors. A special redirect to the band page only located on the dab page, Brand New (band)(redirect), had 25,211 visitors. In other words, 89% of the visitors to the dab page were looking for the band article. Restoring the band article as primary topic is thus clearly in the best interests of our readers. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – London Millennium Funicular → Millennium Bridge Inclinator – No reliable sources seem to use "funicular". While reliable sources use both "Millennium Inclinator" and (slightly less often) "Millennium Bridge Inclinator", the latter is more informative as the inclinator serves the bridge, so is probably the better title. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) PamD 16:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Scrum (development) → Scrum (software development) – The word Scrum is used with reference to Software Development, just like Sprint, since that page uses the article name - Sprint (Software_Development), i would suggest that even this page should use a similar syntax/nomenclature policy and get renamed to Scrum (Software_Development). I think i should consider public opinion and hence posted this here. If consensus is not reached or no opinions turn up, i shall myself blank the current page and create a new one as i mention. Agile Editing! Compfreak7 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Atlatl → Spear-thrower – Article just merged (without any prior discussion) with Spear-thrower, which is the general term used in archeology etc for this form of tool and weapon found from prehistory all over the world. Atlatl was the Aztec word for them (and there is nothing about Aztec use in the article) and has in recent decades been used by American sporting revivalists. It is unknown outside the Americas, and not even used by archeologists except for Mesoamerica. Per WP:COMMONALITY we should use the term which is understood worldwide. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – David Jewett → David Jewitt – Name has been misspelled on wikipedia for years. The correct spelling is Jewitt. A redirect already exists at desired name. Should be a straight forward non-controversial move. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wee Curry Monster talk 15:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lasagne → Lasagna – This article from its beginnings has seen multiple undiscussed moves back-and-forth between the two titles, the most recent coming in 2012 to "lasagne". It should be noted that there has never been a consensus reached, but rather several unilateral moves with little policy backing and no support from Wiki guidelines backing them. As per WP:UE and English use here, this is our best choice. While British usage does favor the "e" spelling, American English goes with the "a" variety by a landslide. And again, there's not really a long-standing variety of English here that I found (see diffs "a" here and "e" here and "a" here and "a" here up through this "e" version). I don't see any reason to override the more common of the two spellings. This is similar to Grey, I think, where despite the article originally existing at Gray they moved because the "a" spelling was more startling to UK English readers than the "e" is to AmE readers. And here I think it's the other way. What do you think? Red Slash 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bondage (BDSM) → Bondage (sexual) – As explained in the above section, bondage (in terms of tying people up for pleasure) doesn't necessarily involve BDSM. Bondage can be done for purely visual, tactile and aesthetic purpose, without any connection to sexual intercourse or domination/submission. JIP | Talk 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC) JIP | Talk 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Coat of arms of Nepal → Emblem of Nepal – Move over redirect. The symbol currently used is an emblem or seal, in line with those listed at national emblem, rather than a coat of arms, as it has no shield, lozenge, oval or other analogous surface to serve as the basis for design. Rather, it is a wreathed landscape scene with other symbols of the represented nation (such as the national flag) incorporated into it. The current emblem was historically preceded by coats of arms, but this move will leave a redirect from Coat of arms of Nepal. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia time is:
08:53, Saturday, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
To update time purge page cache!


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag (see the help page).