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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over 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 10 April 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 prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over 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.

April 10, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard → Wikipedia:Bot noticeboard – Like WP:BOTN currently says, "Although its target audience is bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." The rename would make it clear that this page is a catch-all discussion board for bot issues. While the original purpose may have been to help bot owners in particular, it's certainly evolved beyond that over the years. We'd also move archives and other subpages as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – FA WSL → FA Women's Super League – As per WP:NCA, We don't normally title articles using acronyms unless that name is overwhelmingly used for the subject. In this case, while the name is often referred to as the WSL, the full name is also commonly used, including in the competition's own logo, as can be seen in its infobox. It is also common in media usage, e.g. by the BBC here. By way of comparison, we have articles at FA Women's Premier League not FA WPL, English Football League not EFL, Scottish Professional Football League not SPFL etc. "FA" can stay abbreviated, as it's an additional descriptor rather than a main part of the competition's name, and "Football Association" in full isn't regular usage here. Jellyman (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kim Yeri → Yeri (singer) – Kim Yeri is a combination of Kim's stage name: Yeri, and Kim's birthname: Kim Ye-rim. Since she is better known as Yeri, the article should be moved into the more relevant namespace, this will also keep it inline with other Red Velvet members better known by stage names. Abdotorg (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sia Furler → Sia (musician) – Okay, I get that this has been discussed a billion times now, but I really think at this point, it is perfectly appropriate to revert the article back to "Sia (musician)". Most of my reasons are in agreement with the successful move request from November 2014, and she is definitely just known by her first name, Sia, per WP:COMMONNAME. I saw that the move request back to "Sia Furler" in April 2015 mentioned that her last name is sometimes used in news articles, but at this point, I think very few people really know that her last name is Furler because she just goes by her first name when it comes to music. It has been two years since the last move request, and in that time she has had even bigger hit songs, such as "Cheap Thrills" and "The Greatest". Plus, her discography page is titled Sia discography, not "Sia Furler discography". So therefore, I think now is the right time to get rid of Sia's last name from the article title and replace it with "(musician)". 76.116.198.27 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Greater Western Sydney Giants Netball → Giants Netball – There's no indication that the club or league actually refers to them as anything other than Giants Netball. There's mention of the word 'club' or 'Greater Western Sydney' on the team website or the website of the actual league and in general Media the team appears to be referred to as simply 'Giants', or perhaps occasionally GWS (see here). The club does appear to stylise itself as GIANTS Netball, which could be mentioned in the article. Do people agree with the requested move? Jono52795 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – X2 (film) → X2: X-Men United (film) – Based on WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:SUBTITLES, as well as:
    1. The film is an American U.S. film and made in the U.S., where its' title is X2: X-Men United with subtitle included, therefore we should use the country of origin as the title of origin. This is an example of Precision and Conciseness of WP:CRITERIA.
    2. The Director of this Film himself states that the subtitle makes sense for the film title, and he is the film's creator. It is not a marketing slogan, it is part of the film's U.S. title.
    3. As per MOS:FILM Naming Conventions, specifically AACR2 7.0B1, the title card of a film's starting title sequence does not always state the proper film title, such as the in-film title card to Fast & Furious 6 displaying "Furious 6", which is clearly the wrong title; also The X-Files: Fight The Future having a title card that only displays "The X-Files", the name of the TV show, even though "Fight the Future" is known as the first movie; or how Van Helsing, which has no title card, and that movie is not nameless. So this should be used as precedent. So we must look to the containers or containers (labels) (which is the second order of preference) from the official VHS/DVDs/Blu-ray Discs in the U.S., which display and show that the subtitle is part of the original title to the film.
    4. The UK title of this film is "X-Men 2" and in other parts of the world it is known as "X2", yet those are not the original U.S. titles. We can make a note of these other alternative international titles in the intro paragraph. But we cannot mistake those for the article title as those are not official names of the film and only variants.
    Points 1 and 2 take root under Official Names.
    Please take a look at the many different packaging styles in the country of origin, the original and not international variant packaging, they all have the subtitle displayed exactly as the other films of the series, clearly showing it is not a marketing slogan: Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 | OST Cover Title Clearly, it is not a "slogan", but a subtitle same as The Last Stand is to X3 or First Class, Days of Future Past, and Apocalypse are to the rest of the series. Please consider changing this article's film title to its' official title from the country of origin stated by the director himself. Cheers. Wufan10304 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

April 9, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Girlfriends → Girlfriends (U.S. TV series) – There's 3 other movies called "Girlfriends", a British reality show with the same name, and even though it was very popular it has not been on in 9 years, so therefore I believe this is not the primary topic and that "Girlfriends" should redirect to Girlfriend. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Za'atar → Za'tar – Za'tar more accurately represents the actual pronunciation of this word. It is a two syllable word, not a three syllable word. Even the IPA representation shown in the article ([ˈzaʕtar]) indicates that normal transliteration should be za'tar. I tried to manually move this page to Za'tar, but I think because Za'tar was already redirected to this misspelling, it would not work. Thank you. Akhooha (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 8, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Comcast Cable → Xfinity – The Comcast triple play service has been called Xfinity for 7 years now. As an Xfinity customer myself, I believe at this point, most people know Xfinity by the name Xfinity, not Comcast Cable. In fact, in the 2010s, Comcast is now more of a mass media company, having acquired companies like NBCUniversal and DreamWorks Animation. So I think at this point, the article should be renamed "Xfinity", as it is not just a cable provider anymore. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Gateway Geyser → Malcolm W. Martin Memorial Park – While the fountain existed before the rest of the park, it is now but one element within the park, and I am preparing to expand this article to include the overlook and statue as well. Expansion is one of the reasons for moving a page (bullet #5), when the scope of an article broadens. There may not be enough resources available to establish a new, separate article for the park and still keep this one, which means to cover both in one article, I believe it should follow Wikipedia's naming convention for places rather than for works of art as it is currently. This would follow the example of "The Way", probably the most recognizable element of Laumeier Sculpture Park, where the individual sculpture is covered within the article named for the whole park. In this case, the fountain name, Gateway Geyser would remain in bold in the article lead due to a redirect that would be created here, and this would have no impact on searchability on the web or within Wikipedia. RM2KX (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

April 7, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Gorsuch → Gorsuch (surname) – It is implausible at this point that the primary topic of this term will be anything other than the United States Supreme Court Justice. Other names on the page (and the surname as a topic) fall far by the wayside in comparison. Move this page so that this title can redirect to Neil Gorsuch. bd2412 T 22:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

April 6, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Mount Saint Joseph Academy (Boston, Massachusetts) → Saint Joseph Preparatory High School – I am the Marketing Specialist for Saint Joseph Preparatory High School in Brighton, MA (http://www.saintjosephprep.org/). Recently, I have been trying to change/alter the name of our Wikipedia page. Currently, it says Mount Saint Joseph Academy. However, once you read some of the information on the page, you will learn that the school shut down in 2012 and Saint Joseph Prep was established. I am able to change all of the information on the page but I cannot find out how to change the actual name of the article. If someone could assist, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks! Ms.ShumanSJP (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Seven virtues → Catholic virtue ethics – Alternative name: Catholic ethics. Reason: much of the current article of the seven virtues has developed into an overview of Catholic ethics, or more specifically Catholic virtue ethics. However, naturally, another article regarding the seven virtues could also be kept by extracting parts of the content of the current article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – WITI (TV) → WITI-TV – U.S. TV station articles seem to be standardly disambiguated with the "-TV" appended to the station call letters (e.g. KPIX-TV), rather than by parenthetical disambiguation. Not sure why this one uses the latter, but as I said that seems to be non-standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bowi (EP) → Bowi – This is the only article titled "Bowi". There's no other with this name; this was apparently moved to disambiguate with Bowj, a small Iranian village with a whopping population of 132 that is apparently sometimes known as Bowi. The disambiguation page can be kept if "see also"s are deemed necessary. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 5, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Isaac Abravanel → Isaac Abarbanel – Sid Leiman's article (see above) marshals impressive proofs that this is the correct pronunciation. Additionally, in all Orthodox circles this is the comon pronunciation. Abravanel is an invention of Academia. Zeke921 (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – First Cameron ministry → Cameron–Clegg coalition – Having read the previous arguments over this article's title above, I was indeed cautious about opening another request here. However, having pondered over this article's title for quite some time now, I remain unconvinced that the present title is the WP:COMMONNAME rather than the WP:OFFICIALNAME. First of all, virtually nobody in Britain remembers this government as the "First Cameron ministry". There are 0 results for the term in Google Books, so one would assume this isn't the official title of the government either. The most common name for it is probably "The Coalition Government" or simply "The Coalition". Given how imprecise those two titles are, I'm proposing we retitle this article to Cameron–Clegg coalition, which incidentally has over 450 results in Google Books. I decided against Cameron–Clegg ministry for two reasons: (1) as with the present title there are zilch results for it in Google Books (2) unlike Lord Sunderland or Lord Townshend, Cameron undoubtedly had the most power as an individual in this government. Instead, Clegg's position is more comparable to that of Charles James Fox in the Fox–North coalition, which despite being led officially by the Queen's great-great-great-granddad, was in reality run by Lord North and Fox. I don't mean to ramble, but there is an interesting parallel between that 18th-century coalition and this 21st-century one: in April 1783 North and Fox "combined their forces in the House of Commons to throw out the Shelburne ministry and then formed a government of their own". Replace Shelburne with Brown and this multiple sentence could easily apply to Cameron and Clegg. Talking about Nick Clegg, another complaint I would have about the present title is how it understates his importance in the government (I mean, he isn't even mentioned in the lead section). Despite his seemingly modest leverage over the Conservatives when it came to policy, Clegg was undoubtedly the most powerful deputy prime minister since Clement Attlee. Unlike Attlee, Clegg was serving as deputy in a peacetime coalition government preoccupied by domestic issues in the aftermath of a major recession. Thus he was probably more influential than Attlee was under Churchill, when it came to partisan matters concerning government policy. This tweet by Clegg in 2016 pillorying the last ministry is worth a look. In conclusion, the present title is nothing more than (as Gymnophoria brilliantly noted) "peculiarly ecclestical". I am yet to find a journalist or academic using the present title to refer to this government anywhere online, without having seen it off Wikipedia. --Nevé–selbert 15:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bibi Jones → BiBi Jones – As the article itself has already shown in the lead for quite many years BiBi Jones is her (self-chosen) proper screen name and should therefor of course also be the title. What I read on WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters does not really say much (rather nothing) about a capitalized letter in the middle of a word. It rather explains to use sentence case, which is not relevant here, and always gives as only example of uncapitalized beginnings eBay. However, I think that example of a proper name is comparable to this one here. Moreover, there is no difference to e. g. LeVar Burton. The Bibi version, which is also mentioned in the end of the lead is only the result of lazyness and shouldn't be a reasonable title. SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

April 4, 2017[edit]

References

  1. ^ http://myemail.constantcontact.com/-SANBAGnews---December-2016.html?soid=1115666283112&aid=Si1Q9IIt-yI
108.184.113.46 (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Conjuring (franchise) → The Conjuring Universe – The poster for Annabelle: Creation referred to this series as "The Next Chapter in The Conjuring Universe", as did its trailer. A single piece of marketing for Kong Skull Island referring to the film as being set in the "MonsterVerse" warranted the page's name being changed from Godzilla-Kong Cinematic Universe, so there is no reason the same doesn't apply here. The trailer for Annabelle: Creation also featured a logo for "The Conjuring Universe", and the Annabelle film has spawned a film series of its own. I would have kept this page as "The Conjuring (franchise)" if the studio hadn't given the series a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotExsisting (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Passion Fruit (song) → Passion Fruit (Fujifabric song) – There's a proposal to remove "Drake" from Talk:Passionfruit (Drake song) (released on March 28, 2017) which looks like it will pass as proposed. The problem is that the moment we remove the artist "Drake" from the Drake song, this obscure - but charting - 2007 Japanese indie single is going to start picking up hits from Drake fans who are innocently following the Youtube etc. spelling of "Passion Fruit", not the authorized Drake spelling. This is not a big deal, and in English sources Passion Fruit (Shillelagh Sisters song) 1984, a redirect, is more common than the Fujifabric song anyway. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS English sources are not consistent for the Drake song so let's cut readers a break. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Administrative Districts". 高雄市政府. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2017. 
Szqecs (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Christ Church, Bergen → Old Christ Church, Bergen – I'm a member of a church in Bergen called "Kristkirken i Bergen" (which translates to "The Chirst Church in Bergen"). Christ Church is a living and active community of more than 300 people, and when people search for my church I want them to find it and not this old church that was destroyed in 1531. I want to make a page for my church under the name "Christ Church, Bergen" and to do so this page needs to be moved to a different name. I think that "Old Christ Church, Bergen" or possibly "Christ Church on Holmen, Bergen" would be a more suitable name for this historic church. 2food (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Logoli language → Logooli language – More common spelling, matching the standard orthography of the language (called "Lulogooli" with the language prefix, as in Joseph Olindo Ndanyi's work Amang'ana go lulimi lwo Lulogooli). On Google Books, "Logoli language" gets ~66 results, whereas "Logooli language" gets ~708 results. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

April 3, 2017[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Xing Tian → Xingtian – Reflecting sources and proper transliteration of Chinese. Obscure topic. Furthermore, the first main contributor who used reliable sources had this article on "Xingtian", which was later merged in the older uncited "Xing Tian" article (only because it was older). And I, the second main contributor who used reliable sources, see the same thing in the sources. Note: Article history on the current "Xingtian" needs to be retained. Cold Season (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Boat Race → The Boat Races – "The Boat Race" apparently has changed to "The Boat Races" to include the women's race too. The logo has now changed too, where it hadn't in 2015 (above). SethWhales talk 20:53, 3 April 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.

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – Saint George's Cross → St. George's Cross – * I may have made a mistake with the Saint George's Cross move, St. (or St) looks to be the common n-gram name]. The way I looked at it was that it was Saint George's cross, referring to the individual who is the namesake of the cross, and missed that it seems to be a proper name. I was going with MOS:SAINTS on this and missing that it was a proper name. My apologies. Then again, would MOS:SAINTS apply, and negate the common name policy, thus rendering the page name Saint George's cross, lower-case 'c'? Maybe, but probably not. (EDIT a few minutes later: Well, maybe. Lower-case "c" is a red-link but maybe it's accurate] Randy Kryn 00:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 30 March 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:
16:19, Monday, April 10, 2017 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=774298089"