Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
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 04 February 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.

February 4, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Catherine Blake (disambiguation) → Katherine Blake – Since this dab page has no obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, certainly not one which engenders more searches than all the other topics combined, the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)" is unnecessary. In view of the fact that the dab page lists two Catherines, two Katherines and two Katharines, the choice of "Catherine" was arbitrary and resulted in the need for the qualifier. Ultimately, this page can just as easily be named Katherine Blake or Katharine Blake, both of which redirect to this page and do not require a qualifier, thus enabling us to discard "(disambiguation)". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2016 United States election interference by Russia → Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia – The article title currently makes an affirmative statement which is based on official, U.S. government agencies made during a four-month period - which those same agencies appear to no longer be actively alleging - and which has been disputed by independent media and academics, and which seems to attract increasing criticism with the progress of time (as in this month's newly released Stanford study). Should the title of this article being changed to "Alleged 2016 United States election interference by Russia?" BlueSalix (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Soylent (food) → Soylent (beverage) – As discussed in the other recent RM discussion that was just closed, the current name is highly ambiguous with the food of the same name in the well-known book and film. The product is also a drink, not a solid food. (Although there was a solid bar sold under this brand name for a while, it was not the primary form of the product and it has also been discontinued. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Nubian pyramids → Nubian Pyramids – 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. Oaomar (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mold indoor growth, assessment, and remediation → ? – I came across this article browsing recent changes. At first I was tempted to examine deletion, simply because the title reads like that of an instructional article. Of course, then I read the article and discovered it's a top-importance article for a WikiProject. But the issue of the title remains. It's certainly not WP:CONCISE, and to me it reads like the items pertaining to mold are: indoor growth, assessment and remediation. That is not what the article is about (as far as I can tell!). I think the best move would be to minimise commas and wordiness - so something like Assessment and remediation of indoor mold (still wordy) or Indoor mold growth treatment (which I think sufficiently encompasses the topic, but would need a subject expert to assist). Cheers. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

February 3, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Ovda Airport → Uvda Airport – Requesting renaming per WP:ON:
    Article infobox picture shows that the airport is titled "Eilat Uvda Ariport" and the name in Hebrew transliterates as Nemal HaTe'ufa Uvda. This text was written in the previous move request, and is still relevant. I would go ahead and just move it, as Uvda is a fact (some pun intended). It's not open to debate - it's a fact that the name עובדה can't be translated to ovda. It's different sound and meaning - ovda doesn't really have a meaning, though it is one letter short for the hebrew word for "loss". Anyhow, Avshalom Kor asked the government to stop using the wrong "OVDA": https://www.facebook.com/avshalomkor/videos/1274818839273342/ So I would appreciate if no one opposed to moving it to Uvda Airport and changing all the wrong Ovda in the article itself. More than that, to me it seems like the mistake in the article was copied into real life, and wikipedia basically "made up" the facts. Somewhat Alarming IMO. --Benderbr (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fabius Maximus → Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus – Revisiting an old request. Nearly all secondary sources give his name at least as "Quintus Fabius Maximus", not merely "Fabius Maximus", and most classical reference sources include "Verrucosus" because there were many other important Romans named "Quintus Fabius Maximus". In fact, Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for them, listing twelve (more are known from inscriptions, including a few not named Quintus). Wikipedia presently has articles (or at least stubs) on eleven different persons named "Quintus Fabius Maximus", and most of them at one point were important generals and/or held the consulship, the highest office of the Roman Republic. There's no arguing that this isn't the most important one, but he's the only one not identified by his full name in the article title. Since most other sources list him by his full name (sans "Cunctator", which isn't universally applied, being more an epithet than a cognomen), doing so wouldn't unduly confuse people looking for this article. And of course, a high percentage of people reading this article will get here through links in other articles, in which case the exact title isn't even relevant for searching. The last time this suggestion was taken up, seven years ago, there were two in favour, two opposed. One of those opposed wrote that he would support "Quintus Fabius Maximus", just without the cognomen, which he felt was "way too long, way too clumsy". But we have articles titled: *Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus *Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges (two of them) *Quintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus *Quintus Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus *Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus *Quintus Fabius Maximus Servilianus And two articles titled "Quintus Fabius Maximus" without a cognomen, one of which has the date of his consulship for disambiguation, the other having no disambiguation in the title. Surely if a single article should be primary for "Quintus Fabius Maximus", it would be this one, Verrucosus, not the consul of 45 BC. The fact that one of the "minor" members of this family has that distinction in Wikipedia is hard to explain. The other vote in opposition asserted that "cognomina are merely hereditary nicknames". Which isn't strictly speaking true, any more than it would be to say that "Glover, Cooper, Fletcher, Baker" are hereditary nicknames. It's true that cognomina were acquired much as nicknames were, but they also distinguished branches of larger families, sometimes for many generations; "Maximus" is a cognomen, as are "Caesar" and "Scipio". Within those branches, additional cognomina could be used to distinguish individuals, which is why the Fabii Maximi had so many of them, including "Verrucosus". That was how the Romans identified which Fabius Maximus they intended, and it's how most secondary sources do it today. Verrucosus is the most famous because he played a pivotal role in the Second Punic War, but his ancestor Rullianus was nearly as important a century earlier, and several of the others were quite notable for their deeds. Plus, in categories it's quite odd to see a dozen Fabii Maximi under their full names, including one "Quintus Fabius Maximus" with no additional cognomen or disambiguation, but which isn't this one, and at the same time to have this one alone listed only as "Fabius Maximus", which you might expect to be the title of a disambiguation page, or an article about the family, rather than a single member of it. In short, moving the article to "Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus" would be consistent with how other articles about members of this family are titled; consistent with how he's named in most secondary sources; useful for internal reasons (such as sorting and categorization), and wouldn't make the article significantly harder for users to find. P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Girl develop it → Girl Develop It – This is the correct capitalization for this organization's name, per its own website and normal practice. At the time I helped save the page from A7 deletion by supplying some decent coverage in reliable sources, I hadn't seen that Girl Develop It had existed before and had been salted. I think that by now, it may be a viable article, so I'm soliciting consideration of this by others. Largoplazo (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Red Cross with Triptych egg → ? – This page was moved from Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) to Red Cross with Triptych by MaybeMaybeMaybe in 2012. I subsequently moved it to Red Cross with Triptych egg, since the article was not about a triptych but about an egg and unaware that it had already existed once under Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). It appears that a large proportion of the Faberge egg articles exist with either the parenthetical Faberge egg at the end or simply the word "egg". I attempted to move this article back into Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) but was prevented from doing so by its edit history. There is no explanation as to why the article was moved away from this namespace in the first place, and no discussion anywhere about the move. I see no reason not to move it back (unless there really is a good reason somewhere). KDS4444 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – George Washington Vanderbilt II → George Washington Vanderbilt III – I can see that there has been some contention on this point in this talk page, but as an employee of the Curatorial department at the Biltmore Estate created by George Vanderbilt, I can confirm that he was George Washington Vanderbilt III. The passage above regarding the name confusion that had been removed is indeed correct on all accounts. Here is a link to a Biltmore blog post about George, which confirms his suffix: http://www.biltmore.com/Blog/article/george-vanderbilt As the custodians of his Estate and the leading authorities on his life, I hope you will trust us on this one. Henrylauren10 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Plus ultra (motto) → Plus ultra – Per WP:PTOPIC. This article has received the most page views out of all topics named "Plus Ultra", even if we discount the recent spike. The Spanish national motto is also the primary topic by long term significance, as a motto adopted from Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Other topics include an individual aircraft, an airline founded in 2011 with only two aircraft, and a military contingent lasting for less than a year. None of them have comparable significance. feminist 15:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

February 1, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Jesu (disambiguation) → Jesu – Jesu is an old poetic/vocative form of Jesus! Justin Broadrick's band gets 132 daily hits, compared to 11,358 for Jesus. Impossible to know how many are mishits, but in Google Books "Jesu" refers largely to Jesus in hymns. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – KUSF (defunct) → KUSF.org – KUSF is still operating at the University of San Francisco by Miranda Morris and students of the University. The page should reflect that it is an online only station that is still using the same resources as when it did when KUSF had an FM signal. See usfca.edu/kusf for more information. --Kusforg (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump → Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769 – The current title is imprecise, and is both too broad and too narrow: * It is too broad in the sense that the challenges described are all to this executive order, not to "Trump's immigration policy" generally. * It is simultaneously too narrow, because not every legal challenge comes in the form of a lawsuit. For example, Sally Yates has challenged the legislation's constitutionality, but not through a lawsuit. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights contends that the order implicates human rights law. Scholars also are likely to write articles either questioning or defending the legality of the executive order. These topics are "legal challenges" but are not lawsuits. The proposed title also has the advantage of being shorter and consistent with our precedent (see Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Neutralitytalk 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

January 31, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Generation Snowflake → Snowflake (slang) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is simply common sense to call an article about a slang term by the name of the slang term, not by a particular usage of the slang term. That's why bugger has an article but bugger off and bugger all only have redirects. Calling the article "Generation Snowflake" instead of "Snowflake" is also inherently POV. "Generation Snowflake" is not the prime or even the usual use of the term "snowflake" in its pejorative sense, it's a meme that was pushed by Claire Fox and compliant British journalists in 2016, and is actually on the decline now. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Harmandir Sahib → Golden Temple – Golden Temple is the common name of the Gurdwara, the name that is most frequently used to refer to it in English-language reliable sources.
    A Google Books search on 31 January 2017 found six times as many hits for Golden Temple as for Harmandir Sahib. Apuldram (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Carbonate clumped-isotope → Clumped isotopes – The current title is an adjectival phrase applied to "thermometer" or "thermometry". It cannot stand on its own, however. Clumped isotopes are only used in carbonates, but in the future will probably be applied to other compounds — it makes sense for the Wikipedia article to cover the general concept of what they are and how they form, and then have sections devoted to the paleoclimatological applications of carbonate clumped isotopes. (Of course, that would require a thorough restructuring of the article, but that will be necessary anyway when someone gets around to cleaning up the references, etc.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Face of Love (film) → The Face of Love – Based on page view stats from 1st July 2015 to present[2] the film gets the vast majority of page views, pulling in a daily average of 212 views compared to just 8 for the album, and on no occasion during this period does the album receive more views than the film. Top Google hits[3] are all for the film. The film may be the more recent of the two, but it's clearly the more popular and most likely search term. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 01:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

January 30, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Sail-plan → Sail plan – MOS:HYPHEN has three criteria for using a hyphen: #In hyphenated personal names: John Lennard-Jones. #To link prefixes with their main terms in certain constructions (quasi-scientific, pseudo-Apollodorus, ultra-nationalistic). #To link related terms in compound modifiers. This use of a hyphen in the title of the article does not correspond to the MOS. It does hark back to when the use of hyphens in nautical terms was more common than today. User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Turnspit Dog → Turnspit dog – None of the modern English sources used as references in this article that I've checked, nor a sampling of other reliable sources, shows any that treat "Turnspit Dog" as a two-word proper noun - "dog" is invariably not capitalised in running text. Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format states that "Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text." so I propose that this be renamed accordingly. Whether "Turnspit" on its own is a proper or common noun differs between sources, but as the first letter of Wikipedia article titles are capitalised in almost all cases this is not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sette note in nero → The Psychic – per WP:UE and WP:NCF#Foreign-language films. As confirmed by the poster appended to the article, this Italian feature was marketed, distributed and reviewed in the English-speaking world under the title The Psychic. Although the 2013 exchange ["Italian titles vs English titles"], above, postulates that the main title header should display the Italian title because there are multiple English-language titles, a search of film listings in newspapers across the English-speaking world, only finds "The Psychic" as a title which was released for public exhibition and on DVD. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

January 29, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – NUS No Platform Policy → No Platform – This is certainly the simpler, more common, and more readily recognizable name. In the past, editors have also suggested this page be expanded to a general article on "No platforming" or "Deplatforming". Wolfdog (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Alcaeus of Mytilene → Alcaeus – The archaic lyric poet Alcaeus is the clear primary topic for Alcaeus. It gets more pageviews than the rest of the articles linked from the dab page put together (as per the page-view tool, linked below). Among classical scholars, the lyric poet is referred to as "Alcaeus", without disambiguation (e.g. in E. M. Voigt's Sappho and Alcaeus, and D. A. Campbell's Greek Lyric I: Sappho and Alcaeus), while Alcaeus of Messene is usually referred to as such (e.g. [18], [19]), and finding articles or books primarily about any of the other Alcaeuses is difficult enough that I can't even establish how they are usually referred to. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Haeundae Station (Busan Metro) → Haeundae Station – The article Haeundae Station is a disambiguation page now, because there had been two different stations named Haeundae Station in Busan. One was Haeundae Station (Korail), and the other was Haeundae Station (Busan Metro). However, 30 December 2016, Haeundae Station (Korail) was renamed into Sinhaeundae Station, so there's no need to keep Haeundae Station article as a disambiguation page. --오모군 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Suyeong Station (Busan Metro) → Suyeong Station – The article Suyeong Station is a disambiguation page now, because there had been two different stations named Suyeong Station in Busan. One was Suyeong Station (Korail), and the other was Suyeong Station (Busan Metro). However, 30 December 2016, Suyeong Station (Korail) was renamed into Centum Station, so there's no need to keep Suyeong Station article as a disambiguation page. --오모군 (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jabhat Fateh al-Sham → Al-Nusra Front – Hi The group have been disbanded in 2017 but the commons name of the group was Al-Nusra Front between four years (2012-2016) and the group was known as JFA during 6 months. Panam2014 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 28, 2017[edit]

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) – Colony Wars (video game) → Colony Wars – Per WP:NCVGDAB: "The series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)". There are only the three video games in the series and no other media articles, so the the first game should be the primary term. Mika1h (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Menteşe (beylik) → Menteshe – In English literature, the beylik has commonly been transcribed as "Menteshe", which, incidentally, was also the original name of this article. Searches in literature produce the following: * "Mentese" alone gives thousands of hits, but the vast majority are irrelevant, since this is also a verb in Spanish * "Menteşe" in GBooks gives a bit less than 200 hits, including references to the modern placenames, and quite a few irrelevant hits (Postfeminist Discourse in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, The Celestial Key to the Vedas, etc.) * "Mentese beylik" in GBooks gives 101 hits, with a few obviously irrelevant ones into the mix, and a few Turkish-language ones as well. Most of the hits are to books without preview, so what exactly they match is unclear * "Mentese Turkish" in GBooks gives about 200 hits, with largely the same restrictions as the above (many Turkish-language publications, "Mentese" as a surname, e.g. Halil Mentese, etc.) * "Menteshe" in GBooks, gives about 280 hits, including the usual false and irrelevant hits. * "Menteşe beylik" in GScholar gives a lot of hits, but they are almost all in Turkish; restricting hits to English, there are 73 results, which again * "Menteshe" in GScholar gives 216 hits, many of whom are due to the book of E. Zachariadou, but which nevertheless refer to the principality. In conclusion, usage does not seem to be overwhelming either way, and both forms are used in English both by Turkish and non-Turkish scholars (you can spot the great Halil Inalcik using both forms, for instance). However, "Menteshe" does seem to have the advantage that it is relatively unambiguous, being used in English almost exclusively for the principality and rather infrequently for the modern town. Using it would avoid any confusion with the modern localities and obviate the need for disambiguation. WP:DIACRITICS allows us to use both forms, but IMO, for the general readership, the less modified letters we use, the better. It should also be noted that "Menteshe" is used by reference works like the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1st Ed.) and (2nd Ed.). Constantine ✍ 16:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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:
22:06, Saturday, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=760930343"