Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
"Wikipedia:RFPM" redirects here. For the place to request the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this 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:

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

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It 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.

When not to use this page[edit]

Shortcuts:

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Anyone can be bold and move a page without discussing it first and gaining an explicit consensus on the talk page. If you consider such a move to be controversial, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move.

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

Requesting technical moves[edit]

Shortcut:

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below.

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason:
    {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new page title | reason = reason for move}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.

  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move[edit]

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

{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please 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 (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 15 December 2016" and sign for you.

Use the code |talk=yes to add separate locations for survey and discussion.

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article Alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

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

{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

See also: Wikipedia:Request multiple page moves, 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.

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

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

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructions[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request.

Relisting[edit]

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

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures).

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

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

Current discussions[edit]

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.

December 15, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Mary Anne MacLeod Trump → Mary MacLeod Trump – per WP:COMMONNAME – Mrs. Trump (née MacLeod), mother of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is not known by her full name (including her maiden name) as most subjects are not. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we use the subject's common name. She is known as Mary MacLeod Trump in multiple news sources (DailyMailExpress UKUS WeeklyIrish Central) with 276,000 results on Google Search. The reason to move to the proposed title is that Mary Trump and Mary Anne Trump, though also common name for his mother, is easily ambiguous as her daughter is also named Maryanne Trump, thus the proposed title is the best title for the subject and most common. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 23:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. —UY Scuti Talk 03:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 06:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine → Russians in Ukraine – We have a bunch of articles of this kind, such as Russians in Latvia, etc. The article as it stands is a "POV fork" of the (unwritten yet) article about Russians in Ukraine which is of general interest regardless any conflict. Also, for the subject of the title it borders of WP:SYNTH. E.g. how come 18th century is a "background"; which sources describe these times as a background of 2014 events?. I understand, an article may have a "Background" section, which describe immediately close events. Just look how the background of World War II is covered: no further than WWI, i.e., mere quarter-century. But this one, with already existing content, must be finished to its logical end: the whole history of Russians is in fact background of the today, not just some cherry-picked highlights. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Georef → GEOREF – The proper name is GEOREF, as used by all primary references in the article. +mt 00:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

December 14, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Pick15 → Number Scrabble – Don Norman calls this game "Pick15" in his 1988 Psychology of Everyday Things, but John Michon and Michael Herbert both call it "Number Scrabble" in papers from the 1960s, and this seems to be a more WP:COMMONNAME for it. A Google Books search turns up 94 results for "tic-tac-toe" "number scrabble" and 3 for "tic-tac-toe" "pick 15" (with or without a space); a straight Google search is about 2,800-1,100 in favour of "Number Scrabble". McGeddon (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Krampus in North American popular culture → Krampus in popular culture – There's no need to limit this article's scope to North America, even if most pop-cultural expressions of him arise in North America (or if those are just the ones we're more familiar with). Krampus is probably more a part of the "regular" culture of Europe, but there's no reason he couldn't show up in European popular culture as well. If the point of this article is to suggest North America has somehow perverted Krampus, Krampus in North America, suggested in the above section, might be an option. If this article is not moved to my proposed title, that title should instead redirect to Krampus#In popular culture. It should not be red (cf. WP:INUSA). --BDD (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward → Killings of Alison Parker and Adam Ward – Besides the picture issue, I think the article needs to be renamed. As noted in countless other discussions, "Murders of ..." is inaccurate in this instance. Its colloquial use to refer to any homicidal act notwithstanding, the deliberate killing of one person or persons by another or others cannot be called a murder by Wikipedia (outside of certain historical cases where the common name for the crime includes the word "murder", e.g. Black Dahlia murder) unless a trier of fact has convicted them of that crime specifically or they have pled guilty to it. That never happened in this case ... the perpetrator took his own life before he could be apprehended, much less prosecuted. Now, I know this was long enough back that BLP no longer applies. But it was recent enough a crime that I think we should stick with this rule. I have normally preferred to use "... homicide" in naming articles about apparent deliberate killings. But since this one has two named victims, I think, we'd be better off going to the less awkward Killings of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

December 13, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Raymond Chan Chi-chuen → Chan Chi-chuen – I was the one who requested to change it to the previous title so I wonder why it was reverted back to the current title without being invited to the discussion until now. But my reasons for making the move is as stated before: There are some articles who use the "English name+Chinese family name+Chinese given name" but as you can see they are not the created by trained wikipedia editors who are familiar with the common practice. On the contrary, there are more examples which use just "English name+Chinese family name" or "Chinese family name+Chinese given name". If you see the legco.gov.hk you can see that Chan Chi-chuen goes by his Chinese name only. To be honest, although George Ho says there are many English sources use "Raymond Chan Chi-chuen" rather than "Chan Chi-chuen", but let me remind you that is the common practice for them to use the "English name+Chinese family name+Chinese given name" just to be clearer, such as "Donald Tsang Yam-kuen" instead of "Donald Tsang" or "Albert Ho Chun-yan" than "Albert Ho", but that would not make the basis for changing the title from "Donald Tsang" to "Donald Tsang Yam-kuen" or "Albert Ho" to "Albert Ho Chun-yan". So I would like to revert it back to what it was, that is "Chan Chi-chuen" instead of the long and unnecessary "Raymond Chan Chi-chuen". Lmmnhn (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Confederate Monument in Louisville → Confederate Monument in Brandenburg – The monument has been fully moved to Brandenburg, Kentucky from the previous location in Louisville. Citations for the move in the article. Naming convention of other pages for monuments in Kentucky follow with just the town name. Moving a monument such as this is a bit unprecedented so I could anticipate an argument as to why should not change (121 year history in Louisville). But it seems to me, it would generate more confusion keeping it the way it is. Kintpuash (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bing → Bing (search engine) – The long-term significance of this page as the primary topic is highly questionable, considering it has only had its current name for the last seven years, with the design being preceded by products such as Live Search and MSN Search, which first appeared in 1998, and the fact that those are redirects into this page also suggest this current name is not as prevalent as it seems. Given the history of the Microsoft search engine, it may just be a matter of time before it takes on a new name. Bing has somewhat overtaken Yahoo's share of the search engine market, there is at least a remote likelihood Microsoft may merge its services under the Yahoo brand entirely. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTNEWS, so there's no reason to promote a particular product that has just become popular in the last few years, this is likely WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS and WP:RECENTISM. The search engine might be getting more page views at the moment, but if page view information were available from all of Wikipedia's existence, the search engine would not be as clearly the primary topic as it seems, not the least related to the fact that the Bing search engine name has only been around since 2007. Also, the sum of all of the other Bings also clearly outweigh the product as far as cultural significance. You would think someone like Bing Crosby, with a rather distinct nickname is associated with just "Bing", especially so because of his legacy as "the best-selling recording artist of the 20th century". Also the page views of Bing (bread) are probably lower than they should be, considering that WP is officially blocked in Mainland China (not the English edition, however), and most of those views are diverted to Baidu or the Chinese edition accessed through VPN. Finally, the Bing cherry cultivar is decidedly "the most produced variety of sweet cherry in the United States Prisencolin (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign – The title of this article says "interference" in the US "election". The word "election" implies that Russia interfered with the voting process, as "election" means: "the selection of a person or persons for office by vote."[1] The article, however, doesn't mention Russia interfering with the voting process, but releasing private DNC emails and promoting propaganda. In order to ensure clarity of title, I suggest the page be moved to "Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential campaign" to reflect that the interference occurred with the campaigning (generating opinions, etc.) and not the voting process itself. 11Eternity11 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Leverpostej → Liver pâté – While this food differs from the traditional French/Belgian pâtés, this more smooth liver variant is not an exclusively Danish product, nor is it called "Leverpostej" anywhere outside of Denmark, regardless the fact that the ingredients/production/use is the same. As it is a "pâté" by definition ("a rich, savoury paste made from finely minced or mashed ingredients, typically seasoned meat or fish" according to Oxford dictionary) and it is differentiated by the use of liver tissue instead of muscle tissue, it should be differentiated as such. Chuubii (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 12, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – List of countries with overseas military bases → List of overseas military bases by country – Obviously, this title is more accurate. This isn't just a list of countries, its a list of military bases grouped by country. To User:Iryna Harpy, please actually read the past requested move before knee jerk reverting a straightforward change. It was opposed because it involved changing "overseas military bases" to "military bases aboard". Nothing to do with correcting the poor arrangement of the title, which is what all I have amended here. Edit: I notice you actually commented, what the hell? Rob984 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lego Nexo Knights → Nexo Knights – I don't think it is necessary to prefix the title of the series with the Lego stamp. When I record this on PVR it just said 'Nexo Knights' half the time. This isn't like DreamWorks Dragons where it's necessary to include the company to generate a unique name. At https://www.lego.com/en-gb/nexoknights you can see on the yellow menu they just have 'Nexo Knights' in isolation. More importantly the title cards at the start of each episode use a Nexo Knights logo without Lego on it, and the end credits also just call it Nexo Knights, not Lego Nexo Knights. Ranze (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations → Donald Trump sexual assault allegations – I went over the archives and noticed a previous discussion on moving to a title using "assault" rather than "misconduct", which appears to have been resolved as "don't move". I'm reopening this thread because I think quite a different angle is involved: not that "assault" is insufficiently general but that "misconduct" is euphemistic. Evidently the theme of the article is assault, even if mere "misconduct" has also been alleged. A compromise might be a title with both terms or a term that conveys both. To me, however, it would be hard to swallow a title that implies it goes no further. Compare normal language use in which a term that lies on a spectrum may imply previous stages (assault implying misconduct) but not later stages (misconduct implying assault). Flipping Mackerel (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Old City Gaol, Bristol → New Gaol, Bristol – I understand that this gaol has been superceded by Horfield Prison, so is the old gaol in Bristol, but I've only really seen it referred to in sources as 'The New Gaol' as it was built to take on the inmates of Newgate Prison as well. Historic records at Bristol Archives fairly consistently name it 'New Gaol' ([2] for example), and it seems to be known mostly as 'The New Gaol' in modern publications ([3], [4]), including references used in the article itself. BRO MarkS (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

December 11, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Prison Break (miniseries) → Prison Break (season 5) – Firstly I do no know where the miniseries name actually came from since I have never seen it used much outside of WP. Besides for that the official trailers on youtube.com/PrisonBreak all are calling it season 5. Additionally most RS are calling it season 5 as well, see [5], [6] and [7] as samples. GalatzTalk 22:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Go Whippet → Whippet Coaches – Whippet has now stopped using the name "Go Whippet", and uses "Whippet" or "Whippet Coaches" on all its latest products and mentions on official websites, including its own ( http://www.go-whippet.co.uk/ ) . The company's twitter feed, although retaining the old 'gowhippet' username, for its full name uses 'Whippet Coaches' ( https://twitter.com/GoWhippet )- so I propose this page is renamed back to the original and the redirect is removed. Whistler (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2004 Orange Prokom Open – Men's Singles → 2004 Idea Prokom Open – Men's Singles – I already move this article to fit the title with its Infobox and didn't notice that the name of the sponsor was different, so I'm asking another onw that can move articles to do it. Instead of "2004 Orange Prokom Open – Men's Singles", it should be called "2004 Idea Prokom Open – Men's Singles" in order to fit this article entirely with its Infobox. I apologize for my mistake. Pablito064 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 10, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Cleveland (disambiguation) → Cleveland – In 2009, Cleveland the city was given primarytopic status, even though Cleveland the president and several Cleveland sports teams each gets many more page views. Clearly this should be a "no primarytopic" situation, and the ambiguous term should go straight to the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Flag of China → Flag of the People's Republic of China – Because there is already an article of the Flag of the Republic of China, moving this article will distinguish between the flags of Communist China and Nationalist China. The name of the article is getting too complicated given the fact the PRC controls the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macau whilst the ROC ONLY administers Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some other islands. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 23:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kansas City metropolitan area → Kansas City – If the dabpage can't take over, then the metro area should take over the base title. Statistics say that the cities of the same name in Missouri and in Kansas have more hits than the metro area. However, the redirect and the metro area have more view hits than the disambiguation page. Therefore, "metropolitan area" may not be needed anymore. George Ho (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Makam Habib Noh → Masjid Haji Muhammad Salleh & Makam Habib Noh – In addition to the Makam, there is also the Haji Md Salleh mosque adjacent to the makam. Both institutions are under the same administration[2], with the mosque's management overseeing the upkeeping of Makam Habib Noh. It makes perfect sense to move the page to "Masjid Haji Muhammad Salleh & Makam Habib Noh". 32cravenfan (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 9, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Food Future, Inc. → FoodFutureCo – Brand refresh occurred in fall 2016 and company name was changed permanently from Food Future Inc to FoodFutureCo as evidenced by all social media and company website. FFC 2017 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fvlgvres → Fulgures (album) – Opening this for discussion, as I'm not entirely convinced "Fulgures" is not WP:OR. Yes, it's a reasonable assumption that this is what the title means due to the Roman V standing in for "u", and I fully admit it is a stylism, but this feels tantamount to spelling profanity out on Wikipedia when a source censors them because "we know what they mean". Most sources I have seen from a simple Google search use "Fvlgvres" (whether in lower or upper case). Wanting to know what other editors think about the rename. Ss112 03:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tracey Wigginton → Murder of Edward Baldock – Article is presently about just one of the four accused. TW was not notable prior to this incident. Present article has large chunks about the others and their fate. More on trial and sentencing needed for all participants. Dmol (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 8, 2016[edit]

  • (Discuss) – High-energy visible light → Blue light hazard – I propose a rename of this article to Blue Light Hazard or something similar (the name of the main section of this article). I can't find much reliable evidence that high-energy visible light is a widespread and accepted term for blue light (I can find no sources with a precise definition), it is used as a general term in some scientific publications I have come across but rarely as a specific term worthy of its own article (or as the initialism HEV) Two of the three sources in the lead refer to blue light rather than high energy visible light. I would argue the current title is therefore not recognisable, natural or precise Beevil (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

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) – Sainte-Marguerite River → Sainte-Marguerite River (Saguenay River) – It appears that this article is for the Sainte-Marguerite River in the Mont-Valin territory of the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec that flows into the Saguenay River. However, there seems to be another Sainte-Marguerite River just west of Sept-Îles, Quebec and the Moïse River in the Côte-Nord region of Quebec. I'm having a hard time corroborating this because I'm not literate in French, don't live anywhere near Quebec, and there are indications that both rivers have embayments but the latter one near Sept-Îles flows directly into the Saint Lawrence River west of the 7-island chain fronting the town. I found references to a dam or barrage, which I believe is this one: Denis-Perron Dam shown as Barrage-Sainte-Marguerite in Google Maps. This all means that this article needs to be moved to another page indicating its parent river (Saguenay River) and a second river page needs to be created with the appropriate parent river (Saint Lawrence River) (or new page may just be called Saint-Marguerite River as with this article since it appears to be larger and flows into a larger river similarly to disambiguation with the Snake River). Curoi (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fake news website → Fake news – The ultimate subject is "fake news"; Fake news originate/propagate not only via dedicated websites. They may also be generated via social networks - üser:Altenmann >t 20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – WataMote → No Matter How I Look at It, It's You Guys' Fault I'm Not Popular! – This is the official English title of the original work, which this article primarily covers.[18] The anime series is the only part that uses the title WataMote, but it is an adaptation of the manga and it is not the primary topic. Also, as indicated by the discussion about, there is another manga series that uses the short title of WataMote, thus requiring disambiguation between the two. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Cuban revolutionary propaganda → Propaganda in Cuba – Propaganda in Foo country rather than Fooian propaganda is the standard name for articles in Category:Propaganda by country. This is the only odd duck in that category tree. Now, granted, this article focuses on propaganda in Cuba from the revolutionary times onward, but when most people think "Propaganda in Cuba", they reasonably think of the communist/Castro regimes, not of the now-mostly-forgotten pre-Castro government. I think this article would be much better as Propaganda in Cuba, and if someone wants I am sure it can have the lead slightly changed and a section on pre-revolutionary propaganda added eventually. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – What a Man (song) → Whatta Man – The cover version by Salt-n-Peppa and En Vogue was the most successful out of three versions. Also, the proposed title was used for the most notable version. Even the cover version has more Google results than other versions, especially with the proposed title used. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 03:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Transcaucasia → South Caucasus – South Caucasus has 1,820,000 results but Transcaucasia — 394,000 results in Google search. It is clear that Transcaucasia is an obsolete term. Also, we use a similar connected term - North Caucasus. g. balaxaZe★ 08:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – South Indian diaspora → South Indian Tamil diaspora – 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. Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – New Nationalism (Theodore Roosevelt) → New Nationalism – I don't see why it was moved the other way around in the first place. Most links to "New Nationalism" are currently about Roosvelt related topic (nearly 200 links), which indicates that this topic is more important and new topic should not take precedence. Or if the previous move really was somehow justified, then please do fix all links that currently refer to wrong article. PS. This new topic shouln't be defined as something which "rose in the mid-2010s" if some links to it are also from contexts that are about earlier times. 90.191.109.9 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
  • (Discuss) – J. J. Watt → J.J. Watt – MOS:INITIALS states "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space unless an overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person." (My emphasis). It's abundantly clear just by looking at the reference section that nearly every source excludes a space between each J. This also includes NFL.com, ESPN, Pro-Football-Reference, and the Texans. Lizard (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Malformed requests[edit]

Did you remember to submit your request by using {{subst:requested move}}? See "Bot considerations"

References[edit]

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.
  1. ^ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/election
  2. ^ hjmuhdsalleh.org.sg

See also[edit]

The current Wikipedia time is:
10:48, Thursday, December 15, 2016 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=753457920"