Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:REQMOVE)
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 08 January 2017" 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.

January 8, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Epitaph (Charles Mingus album) → Epitaph (Charles Mingus composition) – The article is about a composition, not an album. "Epitaph (Charles Mingus album)" is especially misleading as that fails to describe any of the three albums mentioned in the article. The 1962 album is not a complete recording of Epitaph and was released under a different name. The following two are post-humous recordings and thus not Charles Mingus albums. Corydonthrosp (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Red Book of Endangered Languages → Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger – If the Atlas replaced the Red List, I guess the article should be moved to reflect the new title? One issue is that it seems like the Red List continued to be updated until 1999[1], after the publication of the 1st edition of the Atlas (1996), so it could be argued that they are different products worthy of different articles. Even so, the Atlas seems to represent a continuation of the Red Book, and then it should be sufficient to mention the Red Book in a section in this article. – Danmichaelo (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 04:45, 8 January 2017 (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) --Relisting. Bradv 04:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

January 7, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – 24 Hrs (album) → 24 Hrs – Someone typing in "Hrs" instead of "Hours" is obviously doing it for a reason. Given that the film is unknown outside of Malaysia, this should be primary. Unreal7 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections – Given lack of consensus on prior title change requests and persistent criticisms of the current title (see for example new section #Bizarre title above), I am formally submitting the previously-suggested variant that gathered some informal support in prior discussions. It has been noted by some editors that many reliable sources now use some variant of "allegations" in their reporting about the story. In the real world, the debate over the nature, extent, sources and impact of election interference is still raging. Per WP:NPOV we must represent all significant opinions in a balanced way, and the current title favors a single version of the narrative. — JFG talk 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Vasovagal response → Vasovagal syncope – Much more usually used name on all searches and ngrams. Pubmed gives 610 results for Vasovagal response and 2,402 for Vasovagal syncope. Also there is a confusing mix of terms on page. Iztwoz (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pomponius Mela → De situ orbis – This article speaks mostly about the geography treatise, and only infers biographical notes about its author from the context given in the book. Therefore the article title should be the book name, and the author should be a redirect. This will require some editing of the text if the move is approved. A similar case appeared at Sun Tzu (mathematician) whose sparse biographical data was merged with his work The Mathematical Classic of Sunzi. — JFG talk 10:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Aa River → Aa (river) – The just previously done (yesterday, 27 December) swap by User:JudgeRM between "Aa (river)" and "Aa River" has to be reverted, since Aa River is an incorrect name according WP:NCRIVER. This was already made explicit by the move before the last one (3 December). All listed rivers refer to rivers/articles which are named without River. River is not part of the name of any of the listed rivers! Therefore it would be more than misleading to call the disambigation page "Aa River". ZH8000 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Whiskey tango foxtrot → Whiskey Tango Foxtrot – All usages of this term have all initial caps. It is primarily a military lingo abbreviation for "WTF", and would have been capitalized if ever spelt out. All the usages here are proper name titles of films or television shows. There is no past disagreement about the proper title for disambiguation, as far as I can tell. There was first an article on the NCIS episode created at "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot", which was moved to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (NCIS episode). Then the redirect left behind was redirected to here. See also support above, from August 2016. I can't move this over that redirect, given there were two edits there. I think it is non-controversial to move this. --doncram doncram 02:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 6, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Huddersfield Line → Huddersfield line – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, reserve capitalization for proper names. This line name is not a proper name, per overwhelming supermajority of lowercase usage in books and news. Most modern caps are for things like titles and headings of timetables where the style is title case for all; our articles use sentence case for titles. Dicklyon (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – M. T. Carney → MT Carney – I believe we need to revisit this after the 2013 RM (which I closed). MOS:INITIALS does say that generally, initials should be "followed by a full stop (period) and a space", but there's an exception for cases where "the person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name." In this case, the subject clearly prefers "MT Carney". According to the New York Times, "Ms. Carney goes by punctuation-free initials that stand for Marie Therese".[4] Her personal pages uniformly use "MT" [5][6][7] It's true that sources discussing her are rather inconsistent, but even looking at the evidence at the previous RM, "MT Carney" seems to be more common. Either way, her personal preference should factor in to the decision. Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

January 5, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Chatterbot → Chatbot – chatterbots are overwhelmingly referred to as chatbots nowadays. A simple Google search will reveal this: 2.8m hits for chatbot (meaning this), 0.3m hits for chatterbot. Keizers (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Friendly → Friendly (disambiguation) – WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT into Agreeableness specifically because: The article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny". Even though there is a film with the title Libel, the article at Defamation is still the primary topic for that title and the film must be disambiguate. Prisencolin (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Abyssinian people → Habasha people – An IP user left a message on my talk page asking for me to move this page. I declined, mainly because I believe they mistook what I meant by "on the talk" in an edit summary, and told them I would copy their statement here and start an RM for them (see this). Here is what they wrote:  :"First let me give you an example of why the title doesn't make sense for this page I am habasha, Tigirnya habasha to be exact and Tigrinyas are only found and are native to Eritrea our Ethiopians Counterparts the the Tigrayans the difference is they live in Ethiopia and we live in Eritrea that is the main difference and we are both habasha but we are not both Abyssinian, Abyssinia was used as the name of the country now called Ethiopia it was used by outsiders as name for people who come from Ethiopia but we are not Ethiopians we are Eritreans so we can not be Abyssinians. Every ethnic group in Ethiopia was considered Abyssinian therefore the title of the page is incorrect.The ethnic groups listed in the page as "Abyssinians" is not correct because Tigrinya Eritreans are not "Abyssinian" they are Eritreans but they are still listed in this page when they are not Abyssinian(Ethiopian) but what is incorrect is the title of page "Abyssinian" the tile should be Habasha that is what the Ethnic groups you listed are and what they are mainly referred to by outsiders who have knowledge about them and by Habasha people themselves. This page has always been called Habasha as far as I remember until last year. Whoever made that mistake has confused a lot of people on a non confuseing issue. We are called and mainly refered to and refer ourselves as Habasha not AByssinians so I request you [referring to me, but I now bring this here] change the title from "Abyssinian" to its original title before it was changed which is "Habasha" thank you." I myself will have no say in this discussion, and will invite the IP user to this discussion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Beijing National Stadium → National Stadium (Beijing) – Both Beijing National Stadium and National Stadium in Beijing are common name. There is nothing to choose between them. If Beijing National Stadium is more common, Because of Wikipedia tile-Beijing National Stadium. This is circulation logic Trap. I think that In this case, We have to choose National Stadium (Beijing), Becasue National Stadium is official name. Not long ago, Moving of Tokyo Nationa Stadium was denied, But Moved to National Stadium (Tokyo). I think this is same case. I really don't know, Beijing National Stadium is common name in English, Tokyo National Stadium is not common name in English. If Beijing National Stadium is more common name, Also Tokyo National Stadium is more common name than National Stadium (Tokyo). Finaly, if we don't have dominant commona name in English, official name is best choice. For consistency, National Stadium (Beijing) is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kirman (Sasanian province) → Carmania (region) – Sasanian Kirman is referred to as Carmania in sources [13] [14]. The Carmania (region) article covers the entirety of pre-Islamic history of modern Kerman province, excluding the Sasanian period, despite covering a roughly similar geographical area ([15][16][17]), largely similar population ([18] [19]), and both occupy the same historical era of Antiquity. The argument that Kirman (Sasanian province) should remain a separate article on the basis of its administrative status as a province is illogical in that the article admits it was a vassal kingdom rather than a province for almost all of its history under the Sasanians, similar to its status under the Achaemenids and Parthians. Other ancient Iranian regions, such as Margiana, Sogdiana, Parthia and Hyrcania, have the entirety of their pre-Islamic history in a single article, for a number of reasons, their geography remained the same, their populations remained the same, and the name of the regions remained the same, for the entirety of Antiquity. I believe Carmania is in a identical position to the aforementioned regions and the entirety of its pre-Islamic history should be held in a single article. Mugsalot (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

January 4, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Closed-circuit television → Video surveillance – Closed-circuit television is not what this is actually about - first about it's about surveillance and not "television", and more importantly it's not closed circuit in most cases. It's all kinds of video surveillance (including webcams viewable over the Internet etc. It's 2017 the page should really be moved now!) Fixuture (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mountain Parkway Byway → ? – (I know there have been disputes over the article's name in the past, and I don't want to restart them). The article talks about two roads: *Mountain Parkway Byway* and *Mountain Parkway Backway*. These names have been set by the state (WVDOT). However, as the article talks about both, the name should reflect that, rather than giving the impression that it only talks about one of the roads, *Mountain Parkway Byway*. There are several names that could be used, which is why I've left the template at "?" rather than proposing one specific name. Tom29739 [talk] 20:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – ČEZ Group → CEZ Group – The name of this company in Czech is ČEZ. According to the company's website, the name in English is CEZ Group (https://www.cez.cz/edee/content/pubutf/ww3/en/home.html). The current name of this article, ČEZ Group, is a mix of two languages and as such it is not in use in any language. Therefore, the original name of this article, CEZ Group, should be restored. As an alternative, it may be renamed to ČEZ without an addition Group. The page was moved to its current title in 2012 without discussion and with an edit summary "correct name". However, this is not a correct name. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Volcanic Explosivity Index → Volcanic explosivity index – Better sources (many or most books, and the original defining paper) use lowercase, treating this as a generic. Prior claims that the 1982 source capped it are seen to be false if one looks beyond title, headings, and abstract; in the text they say "The volcanic explosivity index (VEl) is a general indicator of the explosive character of an eruption." Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, let's reserve caps for proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 3, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Ante Up (song) → Ante Up – Since the creation (or expansion) of the song's article last year, it's received almost all traffic. In fact, even views for the dab page have been decreasing like crazy. This suggests to me that most users thought they'd find the song at "Ante Up" at one point.[20] Unreal7 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Juanpi (disambiguation) → Juanpi – No primary topic. Move over the top of existing redirect and leave a redirect from Juanpi (disambiguation) to the dab, following the pattern of other dabs. Nick Number (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – FLO-Cert → FLOCERT – The organization refers to itself as FLOCERT (no hyphen), and has done so since 2014 - see their website. Cpev09 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Šumarice Memorial Park → October in Kragujevac Memorial Park – is the current name of the park in English, as shown by the website of the park. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. Whilst not as concise as Šumarice Memorial Park, it is much more clearly recognisable as associated with the Kragujevac massacre, with recognisability being a characteristic used to determine WP:TITLE. Šumarice is essentially the locality in which the park is situated, and is unrecognisable as being related to the massacre. Most readers would expect to find the word Kragujevac in the title of an article about the park that commemorates the Kragujevac massacre. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Nice → Nice, France – WP:USEENGLISH and WP:ASTONISH, in the English language contexts, "Nice" primarily refers to the behavior. The the name of the city is derives from the Greek Nikaia (Νίκαια), which was given in 350 BC. The current name "Nice" is certainly at least a millennium younger. On the other hand niceness as an emotion and behavior is as old as humanity itself, therefore this article title is WP:RECENTISM. Granted, the article about kindness is rather dismal, but that just means there's some for improvement on that end. Many philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists have studies the phenomenon of niceness, so that article can very easily be expanded. The city might have more page views, but it clearly doesn't have more lasting significance. Searching for "Nice" on any search engine first brings up results about the behavior of niceness. Previous requested move discussions seem to have ignored the third criterion for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: "The article at Defamation is the primary topic for five terms: "defamation", "libel", "slander", "vilification", and "calumny". Even though there is a film with the title Libel, the article at Defamation is still the primary topic for that title and the film must be disambiguated." We have the same situation here; "Nice" primarily refers to the behavior so the city name needs disambiguation. For those of you who think that "nice" by itself doesn't refer to anything in particular, consider its use in phrases like Minnesota Nice and Naughty or Nice. These not only provide evidence that the term "Nice" by itself not only refers to "kindness" as an emotion, but is a noun. Consider the ironic usage of the term in the book title Nice Is Just a Place in France: How to Win at Basically Everything, where the author jokingly suggests that "nice" more commonly means the city of Nice than the behavior. Countless other Wikipedia articles that include usage of the word nice and have nothing to do with the city so so article title WP:CONSISTENCY needs to be considered as well. Examples include: Nice guy, Nice Girl Project!, Nice & Slow, Nice Work If You Can Get It (musical), and Have a nice day. I'm not entirely sure what kind of disambiguator should be used, but don't let that prevent the article from being moved in the first place. Prisencolin (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Ondine (disambiguation) → Ondine – This should be the name of the primary disambiguation page. Currently all searches for Ondine end up at Undine which is very often not what the user is looking for (novel, song, play, film, etc.). Toploftical (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 'Tis the Season → 'Tis the Season (disambiguation) – Clear primary topic referring to lyrics of "Deck the Halls" in comparison to the other items. Since the previous no consensus above, the lowercase 'Tis the season has been challenged at RfD and consensus was to keep the redirect to that topic and not redirect to the dab. For the uppercase there is no point in forcing users to this dab with so many relatively less significant, or, actually non-notable, articles. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this is both a clear primary topic for popularity and long-term significance. The fact that this is a primary redirect, lyrics, different case are irrelevant when it comes to the goal of navigation which is the sole purpose of disambiguation - sending the ~1M readers per day to the article they wish, and not false balancing demand for non-notable topics in the pretense that any of them are wanted. The dab was previously removed from the most viewed article list as "erroneous", but this continues to be an annual own goal with Google's longest annual Doogle. (non neutral nom rant to underline issue of putting readers first per WP:IAR) Widefox; talk 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting as consensus is still not clear. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Monospace (Unicode) → Monospace (typeface) – Alternatively: "Monospace (font)", but that seems ambiguous. This page name is inaccurate because while its subject is related to Unicode for its coverage of Unicode characters, it has nothing directly to do with other Unicode topics that might be disambiguated with "(Unicode)". Normally "(font)" would be best, but this is distinguishable from Monospaced font only by three letters two of which are punctuation. 71.210.8.251 (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 1, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Saraiki dialect → ? – The use of "dialect" in the title is out of step with common usage and reflects a view that is nowadays espoused mostly by Punjabis, many of whom see Saraiki as a dialect of their own language. I can see two acceptable titles: *Saraiki Likely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only other article that this title could refer to is Saraiki people, but that doesn't seem to be widely used: most google hits I see have "Saraiki" referring to the language. Support for this can also be found in the statistics of pageviews: for the first three months of the year, the language received on average 200 views per day [27], while the ethnic group got only a third as many [28]. *Saraiki language The WP:COMMONNAME found in established scholarly sources – everything of quality that I've encountered while rewriting the article treats it as a language: for example, Masica (1991, p. 443) – one of the two standard reference books on Indo-Aryan languages, as well as almost all of the writings of the two authorities on Saraiki: Christopher Shackle and Tariq Rahman (their work is referenced throughout the article, but the most accessible one is probably the Encyclopedia Britannica article written by Shackle). The only exception is Shackle's chapter in Cardona's book (this is the second standard Indo-Aryan reference text), but there neither "language" nor "dialect" are used (instead, the word of choice is "variety" – a neutral term widely used in linguistics for any language/dialect/register). Looking more widely, "language" is again overwhelmingly more common than "dialect". Google Books gives 1,020 results for the phrase "Saraiki language" [29], which is eight times more than the 129 for "Saraiki dialect" [30]. Google Scholar has 169 results for "language" [31], 17 times more that the meagre 10 returned for "dialect" [32]. On LLBA (Proquest's index of linguistics papers) I found only five articles, but all of them treat Saraiki as a language and not as a dialect. Also, Saraiki language was the title of the article for most of its history since it was created in 2004 (and de-stubbed in 2006). It was moved to Saraiki dialect only in 2013, by a banned user [33]. There have been several discussions since then, but they have been dominated by the numerous sockspuppets of User:LanguageXpert (particularly User:Maria0333) and User:Yoyi ling. There have been good-faith opinions as well, but I don't remember seeing any viable argument for the dialect view: comments have been either outright WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (of the type "I'm a Punjabi and I can read Saraiki newspapers, therefore it's a dialect of Punjabi") or unwarranted inferences ("In Cardona's book, Saraiki is described in the same chapter as Punjabi, so it's probably a dialect.") Also noting that participants in the previous discussions might have been misled by the content of the article at the time: its section "Language vs. dialect", written by a banned user, had bogus sources and has since been removed (this is explained in a previous thread). Note: of the three common spellings Saraiki, Siraiki and Seraiki, the variant with a seems to be prevalent nowadays, and that matter is not the subject of this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 22:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Islamofascism → Islamic Fascism – (note that the term Islamic Fascism directs here.) Islamofascism was a politically charged, negative neologism that emerged in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and appears to have faded. It can certainly support a page. However, this page has evolved into a discussion of the many academic and popular attempts to liken aspects of Islamism with fascism, discussions of characterization of Islamism as fascism, and refutations of these comparisons. I could support splitting into 2 pages (Islamofascism and Islamic Fascism), but what I am proposing here is to move the page to Islamic Fascism (and then, of course, move the neologism Islamofascism to a subhead) The point is that while reputable scholars continue to discuss aspects of Islamism that are similar in sundry ways to aspects of fascism, Islamofascism is in use mainly as political invective. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 20:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Hoppo (Qing dynasty official) → Hoppo – The primary use for Hoppo is the Qing official: * The article that prevents the move is a disambiguation page. * That page lists other links, but there is no other article named "Hoppo." * Readers will naturally search for "Hoppo" rather that "Hoppo (Qing dynasty official)." *The Google search Hoppo + China finds mainly hits for the Qing official, very, very few for the city. *Even a Google search Hoppo + Guangxi, the county being in Guangxi province, there are more hits referring to the city on the first few pages, but in further pages, many on the Qing official. *Those searches include hits for online dictionaries that define the Qing official, not the town or the band. *The search of Wikipedia for "Hoppo" doesn't find any hits for the city, more for people nicknamed Hoppo, and a fair number for Hoppo the official. * I will be adding material on the Hoppo to articles in the area of the Canton Trade, the Opium Wars, Qing dynasty bureaucracy, etc., where the short form "Hoppo" will make things much easier. ch (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Man Booker Prize → Booker Prize – Common name according to the article, unambiguous, more concise, reversing bold 2005 move which was contrary to 2004 consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Red coat (British Army and Royal Marines) → Redcoat – 1st the article is not only about Britain, as it shows itself. 2nd the "Redcoat" is used as the military uniform instead of a simple coat painted red, which is the case. And 3rd it's a primary topic without any real contestant, as a google search can attest, with far more views than the disambiguation page: [34] and [35] Bertdrunk (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. KSFTC 18:33, 1 January 2017 (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) – 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)) Several new suggestions have been made, and there is not consensus for any of them yet. They should be discussed before this request is closed. --Relisting. KSFTC 20:46, 31 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.


See also[edit]

The current Wikipedia time is:
07:33, Sunday, January 8, 2017 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=758898856"