Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect 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. For requesting 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.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a 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:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move: a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

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

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with such a move, 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

Shortcut

If you are unable to complete a move for technical reasons, you can request technical help below. This is the correct page if you tried to move a page, and you got an error message saying something like "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:".

  • 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.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests


Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcut

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:

  • 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. For technical move requests, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. Instead, consider contributing to the open discussion if you would like to propose another alternative. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Do not create a move request to rename one or more redirects. Redirects cannot be used as current titles in requested moves.

Requesting a single page move

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 May 2020" and sign the post for you.

There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 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, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request must be made on a talk page other than the talk page of the page to be moved. For example, a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates would need to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation because the talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, is a redirect to that centralized discussion page. In this type of case, the requested move should be made using the following code: 

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=(present title of page to be renamed)|new1=(proposed title of page)}}

Note that the |1= unnamed parameter is not used, and that the |current1= and |new1= parameters are used similar to multiple page moves described below.

Requesting multiple page moves

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).

To request a multiple page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you chose for your request, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{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: Template:Requested move/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.

Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace. For multi-move discussions hosted on a page which is not itself proposed to be moved, specify |current1=Current title of page 1 for the first page to move.

Request all associated moves explicitly

Please list every move that you wish to have made in your request. For example, if you wish to move Cricket (disambiguation) to Cricket because you do not believe the sport is the primary topic for the search term "Cricket", then you actually want to move two pages, both Cricket (disambiguation) and Cricket. Thus you must list proposed titles for each page affected by your request. For example, you might propose:

If a new title is not proposed for the sport, it is more difficult to achieve consensus for a new title for that article. A move request that does not show what to do with the material at its proposed target, such as:

is incomplete. As a malformed move request, it may be subject to early closure on procedural grounds.

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 10 May 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is given.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 May 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Use when the proposed new title is not known.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:.
This tag should be placed at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.

{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 10 May 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2020‎ (UTC)

Survey
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Discussion
Any additional comments:



This template adds subsections for survey and discussion.
Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted. Be sure to use the subst:
Click the "New Section" tab on the talk page and leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template by default automatically creates the heading.

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 May 2020

– why Example (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not sign this template—this tag is auto-signed when substituted.
Be sure to use the subst: and place this tag at the beginning of the section containing the relevant discussion.
Add additional related move requests in pairs (|current3= and |new3=, |current4= and |new4=, etc.).

{{subst:Requested move |new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 10 May 2020

– why Example (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
  • The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
  • Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
  • Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
  • Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes 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.[a]
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with 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 using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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.[b] 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 automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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 by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}} or {{Mdn}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

  1. ^ A nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position. Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy. Please remember that the entire nomination statement is transcluded into the list on this page.
  2. ^ Despite this, discussions are occasionally relisted more than once.

Current discussions

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 and in table format. 53 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

May 10, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Big Enough → Big Enough (Ayiesha Woods song) – Per WP:DPT, page view statistics show this page getting 0-5 hits a day for two years; this rose to a peak of around 100 hits a day when Callinan's song was released in late 2017, I'd suggest almost certainly mistaken hits looking for Callinan's song which did not have an article until 2018. Once the article for Callinan's song was created in late 2018, it has consistently got between 100 and nearly 800 hits per day, while this page has returned to single figures. The Callinan song is four of the top 10 Google hits for the term, and has 52 million views on Youtube; the Woods song does not appear in the first 15 pages of Google and has 137 thousand views. The article on Callinan's song is also far more extensive and has significantly superior references - this page is barely more than a stub and its references are all more or less listings, barely sufficient to establish basic notability. I think the Woods song is evidently not the primary topic; it might be possible to consider a move of the disambig page here, but I'd argue the Callinan song is the primary topic - I can't see any other alternatives of significance. TSP (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

May 9, 2020

  • (Discuss) – The Phantom of the Opera (Andrew Lloyd Webber song) → The Phantom of the Opera (song) – Per WP:SONGDAB, we only have one article about a song named "The Phantom of the Opera". (Phantom of the Opera (Iron Maiden song) is potentially notable, but 1. it's not a single; 2. it does not currently have an article; 3. the lack of "The" in its title suffices as disambiguation.) Even if further disambiguation were needed, SONGDAB guidelines suggest that "The Phantom of the Opera (Sarah Brightman and Steve Harley song)" would be a more appropriate title than the current one, as the guideline prefers using the name of the performer who first performed the song over the name of the composer. feminist | wear a mask 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mars Helicopter Ingenuity → Ingenuity (rotorcraft) – Building upon concerns raised by BilCat that the disambiguator "spacecraft" may not be appropriate for vehicles that do not operate in space, and by Yarnalgo that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is not an appropriate name as it is not used in any official capacity. I want to add to this by saying that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is also not seemingly used in any commonly recognisable capacity either, and that the disambiguator "rotorcraft" may be more appropriate than "helicopter", as it adequately describes all rotor-propelled aircraft without denoting a specific type of rotorcraft; Dragonfly, for example, isn't referred to as a helicopter while Ingenuity is commonly referred to as such. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fort Worth Invitational → Colonial National Invitation – Following on from the discussion above, it may be useful to formally discuss this so I am proposing a move to the neutral WP:COMMONNAME. This remains the name on the trophy (actually Colonial National Invitation Tournament, but the word "tournament" is generally left off by the media) and the PGA Tour have even continued to use this name ([1]). The tournament is commonly referred to simply as "Colonial" ([2], [3], [4]) ahead of any sponsored name, so the title should certainly reflect that and this seems the most neutral. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Nijat Mamedov → Nidjat Mamedov – "Nidjat Mamedov" is the spelling found in all English-language sources I've seen, including Nidjat Mamedov rating card at FIDE and Di Felice Chess International Title Holders, 1950–2016. In fact this was the original title of the article until it was moved to Nijat Mammadov without discussion in 2013. I made an error in trying to restore the original title and fixed only Mamedov, missing the Nijat -> Nidjat fix. Because the original article title had some technical bot edits to fix double redirects, the page can now only be restored to its original title by an admin. Quale (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:E → Template:x10^ – Per WP:TMPG: "Template function should be clear from the template name". In this case, the single letter "e" is not clear on its own, as that letter has many potential meanings in academic writing where this template is commonly used - for example, "E" for energy in E=mc2, e (mathematical constant), and many others. The alternative I'm proposing aligns with a sister template {{10^}}, and is already a long-standing redirect. -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

May 8, 2020

  • (Discuss) – North Rhine-Westphalia → North-Rhine Westphalia – The original name is "Nordrhein-Westfalen", reflecting the two constituent regions of the state – the English translation should hence do the same. The current title, which suggests "North" as a modifier to "Rhine-Westphalia", probably resulted when Germans simply kept their native language's hyphen in the same position and split "North Rhine" without regard to the misleading result of "North" prefixing some nonexistent entity "Rhine-Westphalia". This problem is also discussed here, with an awkward suggestion to combine a hyphen with a slash. Two blocks on this very Talk page point to this situation as well, including a suggestion to simply use the native name, which I'd consider the second best alternative – this seems to be applied to most other geographical entities in Wikipedia, like French departments. Either way, I guess it will be okay to note the wrong spelling as a popular alternative in the article. What is also pointed out above is that the German Foreign Office prescribes the existing title for official use. Prescribing an error to the German bureaucracy needs not be a reason for Wikipedia to copy this, and as a constituent entity of the Federal Republic, the state's name is not the federation's to change. Admittedly, the state website and Langenscheidt's dictionary use the same, but I would still argue that they just adhere to the Foreign Office's erroneous guidance. I am aware that I am arguing correctness against popularity here, and also that the argument does not count that Wikipedia would essentially undo the popularity argument by way of setting the example. Urs Enke (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – ISO 12620 → Linguistic categories – Move to/merge with Linguistic_categories#ISO_12620_(ISO_TC37_Data_Category_Registry,_ISOcat). Reason: This page remained a stub for a very long time, and this is unlikely to change. Moving the content to a more general page that describes this standard together with a number of alternatives will provide added value for a user even if no additional content will be provided. Chiarcos (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Arabic → Arabic language – The current title is inconsistent with other languages titles. This page can be a good disambiguation page, it would include Arabic script, Arabic alphabet etc. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Priyanka Chopra Jonas → Priyanka Chopra – Procedural nomination. On April 23, this page was arbitrarily moved from "Priyanka Chopra" to "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" by one user, without any locatable evidence of a page move discussion to establish a consensus for that. However, our naming conventions are governed by the topic's WP:COMMONNAME, not necessarily their legal one — and even if she is technically "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" in her personal life, it is not at all clear that "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" is how she's normally referred to in the media: a Google search indicates that while media references to her as "Priyanka Chopra Jonas" do exist, they're far outnumbered by media references to her as just "Priyanka Chopra" — I've even found sources published within the past 24 hours that still refer to her as just "Priyanka Chopra", so it's not even clear that her common name has shifted since her marriage for the purposes of the "sources published after a name change carry more weight" test. I don't actually have any strong preference either way, and am perfectly willing to abide by whatever consensus decides — but since the page move did not follow proper process, there needs to be a discussion to ensure that whichever name we use for her is backed by consensus. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Macuto Bay raid → 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – A multitude of reliable sources across multiple languages are now describing the operation as a coup attempt after Silvercorp admitted their objectives. This is the main criteria for including the word "coup" in an article title according to WP:Coup, an essay I created. Surprisingly, CNN, Fox News and Voice of America agreed to describe the event as a coup as well. --ZiaLater (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – WION (TV channel) → WION – Extreme notability advantage demonstrated through pageviews: 1, 2. No discussion needed, really. NØ 11:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Austria – the Nazis' first victim → Austria victim theory – The article is not about the slogan, it's about the theory itself—that Austria was the victim of Germany during World War II. The German article is located at de:Opferthese ("victim theory") which seems to be the common name in German. In English "victim theory" has other uses, so Austria or Austrian should be added as a natural disambiguation. buidhe 08:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Hindu → The Hindu (newspaper) – Hindu primary meaning is Hindu religion. Just adding the article "The" wont change the meaning. So having "The Hindu" for this newspaper article is ambiguous. Hence disambiguation (newspaper) is necessary. Crashed greek (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Michael Fagan incident → Michael Fagan (intruder) – For the following two reasons: The article is just as much about Fagan as the incident, so it would probably be better here due to the article structure from the contested db-move request by Ktr101 (now banned) and The article is indicating the person and the incident is described anyway from the move by ABigBeast05 to Michael Fagan (Intruder) that I have reverted. Sharper asked for the uppercase disambiguator to be moved to the lowercase one at WP:RM/TR, but given that the db-move request had been contested by Yunshui, it is better to discuss a move from the original title instead. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 311 → AD 311 – I think the band 311 is more notable than the year, but I'm not suggesting that we move the band here. However the year is certainly not the primary topic for "311". Spacemo80 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

May 7, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Spring of Bandusia → Spring of Bandusium – This is a procedural nomination on behalf of a new editor. They made a potentially controversial move, which I reverted, which started discussion on my talk page (transcluded below). I have no personal stake in this, but acting in an administrative capacity I figured I'd do the "legwork" for the somewhat-convoluted process of starting an RM. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Basic physics of the violin → Physics of the violin – The term 'basic' is relative—what is simple and easy to comprehend to one reader may not be to someone else—and appears to be little used in other Wikipedia articles in this context. None of the sources so far listed in the article distinguish between the 'basic' physics of the violin family of instruments and physics which is more advanced (e.g. more mathematical or more in depth. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

May 6, 2020

References

  1. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/semma-botha-aagathey/movie-review/64796000.cms
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSD5Gn5s7wE
– TamilMirchi (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 19:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – West Haven Yankees → West Haven A's – The convention for baseball teams is that they are located at their final name. This team was the "West Haven Yankees" from 1972 to 1979, but last known as the "West Haven A's" (1981–1982). NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Kama'aina → Kamaʻāina – The specific reasons which opposed to rename the article in 2011 are outdated now. Non-typeable characters are part of the widely accepted unicode standard and therefore don't create search problems anymore. Redirects ensure the successful search for all users. --ThT (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Wadi Qana → Nahal Qana – The move has happened without any discussion yes I understand this happened two years ago but the article since the contested move didn't receive much edits I ask that the original title will be restored and move and discussion will take place Shrike (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – R.Y.C → R.Y.C. (album) – The album is titled after the song "Raw Youth Collage" so the initials should have a full stop/period after each letter – however, there is a redirect for the same album at the target page, and R.Y.C. is a DAB page. Richard3120 (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

May 5, 2020

  • (Discuss) – 2021 Welsh Parliament election → 2021 Senedd election – With all due respect to the previous move discussion, I think it was premature to take a preference on what name to use before the Senedd itself had a chance to. The name "Welsh Parliament" was always a concession made to the AWAP-style unionists and the common name for the renamed body, even in English, is "the Senedd". That's backed up by the Senedd's style guide for the name change, which just uses "Senedd x" when talking things relating to the Senedd. "Welsh Parliament" and "Senedd Cymru" will remain the formal names, but there is no chance of ambiguity by just saying "Senedd". Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mastermind (TV series) → Mastermind (British game show) – Both of these articles need to be moved to the correct disambiguation as per WP:NCTV. The lede of the article on the British show very directly says "Mastermind is a British television game show...", so this clearly a "game show" and not a "TV series". In addition, the British show is currently insufficiently diambiguated from the Irish show as per WP:INCDAB and should be moved to "by country" disambiguation, unless it is felt that this is the "primary subtopic" in which case it should still be moved to Mastermind (game show). Meanwhile, the lede of the Irish show states "Mastermind was an Irish television quiz show..." quiz show redirecting to "game show", so this is also incorrectly disambiguated, and should also be moved to "Irish game show" disambig. as per WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Home Shopping Network → HSN (TV network) – The channel has clearly gone by its abbreviation for the last twenty years and uses its initials for corporate purposes, so it's time to rename the article to its abbreviation. JE98 (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Zeppelin L 45 → Zeppelin LZ85 – Because the Imperial German army used the Zeppelin company designation, initially and later that serial +30, for their tactical numbering system, there is a LOT of confusion. To alleviate that confusion, Zeppelin articles are generally titled with their Zeppelin company designation and NOT their tactical number Petebutt (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

May 4, 2020

  • (Discuss) – British Rail Classes 251 and 261 → Blue Pullman – The TOPS numbering scheme is designed to give consistency with other UK rail articles, but these sets never carried the TOPS numbers and are universally known as "blue Pullmans". So we are using a theoretical name that is largely unknown, for internal consistency and in defiance of WP:COMMONNAME Guy (help!) 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Neopost → Quadient – This company has officially changed its name and now trades under the name "Quadient." This request should be non-controversial, but as I have a COI, when I submitted a proposal for an independent editor to update the article with the new name, they asked that I submit a "request move." All the sourcing, as well as updates to the text that are required (e.g. new stock symbol, new logo, new company name in the lead) can be found at: Talk:Neopost#Requested Edit After the move is done, I will resubmit the Request Edits for the updates in the text and/or I would be grateful if any editor would review the naming-related updates at this time. Thanks. Mango9876 (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

May 3, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Shelley (disambiguation) → Shelley – No primary topic for plain "Shelley". "Percy Bysshe Shelley" gets 52,100 views but everything else simply called "Shelley" gets 6,383. Given most reader looking for the poet will probably search for "Percy Bysshe Shelley" or "Percy Shelley" or "P. B. Shelley" its more likely that someone searching for just "Shelley" is probably looking for something called Shelley, however per WP:NAMELIST Percy should remain on the main DAB so that readers can still find him but its not appropriate to make everyone searching for something called just "Shelley" to go through 2 pages to find what there looking for (or 3 of looking for someone else with the name) meaning readers have to go Percy>DAB>Intended article and if someone is looking for someone else with the name they have to go Percy>DAB>Name article>Intended article, that's just not helpful, those wanting Percy can still find him on the main DAB without inconveniencing everyone else. The other entries on the main DAB (of which there are 16 and 2 in the See also) bring the number up to 7,612[[12]] (excluding the other DAB and the Victoria locality page). For views of the other people who are named (or surnamed) Shelley is 408,934[[13]] excluding topics like Twin Peaks but including the 3 other DAB pages[[14]]. Many of the other examples don't seem comparable that there given above for example Keats (disambiguation) only has a few entries (and the unincorporated community and crater are named after John) and most of the other uses of Galileo (disambiguation) are indeed named after scientist, by contrast the surname comes from the 3 English villages and there are other entries that have nothing to do with the poet. Shelley on the other hand is a common given name, place name and surname that has many uses unrelated to the poet. Shelley Duvall (94,335) and Shelley Long (81,707) get more views than the poet even though they are probably not as commonly known as just "Shelley" though people are sometimes known by only 1st name such as Madonna (entertainer) and Willian (footballer, born 1988) where we have even disambiguated them by putting their occupation in brackets rather than using their full name and Elvis Presley is commonly known as just "Elvis". In addition given names are commonly used, people normally refer to themselves and people they know by only 1st name, not last name. A Google search does show most results for Percy but the 2nd result is a map for the village in Suffolk, Google results probably aren't that reliable since on Google people are more likely to abbreviate things that when searching on WP and the Suffolk village map is probably because of my location. An Images search returns a bit more results for Percy but Mary Shelley, the TV series and people with the 1st name are also there. Compare for example Bismarck, Columbus and Lincoln that go to DAB pages even though Otto, Christopher and Abraham are more notable and Raleigh that goes to Raleigh, North Carolina despite Walter Raleigh also being important since it was indeed noted people typing Bismarck, Columbus or Lincoln are not significantly more likely to be looking for Bismarck, Christopher and Abraham (but are rather seeking something with the single word) since everyone knows to search by "Firstname Lastname" and similarly unqualified "Raleigh" is more likely to mean the city than the explorer. But in this case there are even other people who as noted actually get more views! do any of those other surnames have another PTM that gets more views than the stated surname holder above? I don't think that that's likely. By percentages Percy gets around 81% of the views of things simply called "Shelley", 68% of all the things on the DAB and only 8% of the views of everything on the DAB and the people with 1st and last name. Its quite clear that by PT#1 Percy is not "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" when the reader searches for the plain term and given how widely the name is Percy doesn't have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" for just the term "Shelley". Furthermore there are likely more articles since GeoNames also shows some other PTMs that could go on the DAB page as specific names per WP:PTM, the place in Australia is notable but only has a population of 7. intitle:"Shelley" shows a total of 370 pages including this name of which more could probably be added to the name article or DAB page. The given name and surname articles could still be split to Shelley (given name) and Shelley (surname) and then like Lewis there could be a section "People" (with "Shelley (name)" redirecting there) including the given name, surname, Percy and anyone else who is often known by the name alone to be included there per WP:NAMELIST. I thought redirecting to Percy shouldn't stand a chance in hell given the large number of other uses similar to Newton, Isaac Newton who is a lot better known than Percy and who I' personally associate "Newton" with isn't the primary topic while I'd personally associate Shelley with the given name (which as noted 2 get more views than Percy) or placename. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 21:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Yikes (song) → Yikes (Kanye West song) – There is at least two other songs of the same name, one of which is by an artist with an equal profile to West's. It has not been demonstrated that either song received more coverage than the other. This would prevent confusion as it cannot be argued that Minaj or West's songs are more prominent/primary. If anything, Minaj's page has more views than West's.  → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Metropolitan Police Service → Metropolitan Police – Although its official name is now the Metropolitan Police Service, its common name is still overwhelmingly the Metropolitan Police, which redirects here. For most of its history it was only known as the Metropolitan Police (MPS is a recent innovation). Its own logo and website calls it the Metropolitan Police. Its Twitter page mostly calls it the Metropolitan Police. It is almost always called the Metropolitan Police in the British media, including such outlets as the BBC. No, it isn't the only force in the world called the Metropolitan Police (although it probably is the only force that only uses that name without a city identifier), but it is the clear primary topic for that name, as one of the oldest and most famous police forces in the world which was the prototype of full-service civil policing. It should clearly be renamed per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dinnerladies (TV series) → Dinnerladies – No need for disambiguation. Basic title is a redirect to disambiguated title, with history which prevents simple move. Possibly controversial as page was moved in reverse direction in 2016 PamD 10:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC → Copperweld – Move the article about the company over the current disambiguation page and put a hatnote there {{for|the trademarked product|Copper-clad steel}} (the supreme court case entry is covered by a link in the company article). Also delete the redirect Copperweld (disambiguation). The company has has a variety of names (including Copperweld Steel Company, Copperweld Corporation, LTV Copperweld, Copperweld Bimetallics LLC, Fushi Copperweld), and the article is about all of those incarnations. The current company's website [17] [18] indicate the company is known as just "Copperweld". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

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) – 2019–20 Hong Kong protests → 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests – I was asked by Matthiaspaul to revert my rename of this page to the proposed name. Reasoning was " 4-digit years are the preferred form per MOS" (on my talk page). When it was initially moved to that article, it apparently against a discussion on 1 January 2020 (archive 11), and I feel that another discussion must be needed to move it back to the 2019-2020 one. Starzoner (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Togwon Station → Segil Station – Segil Station is NOT on Songdowon Line, but on Kangwon Line. It is obvious that Togwon Station, between Wonsan and Munchon Station, has been renamed into Segil Station per below: * From recent map of railway in North Korea, you can find ⊙원산(Wonsan) at the center of the map and you can see that 세길(Segil) is between 문천(Munchon) and 원산. [20] ** From Kokubu, Hayato, 将軍様の鉄道 (Shōgun-sama no Tetsudō, published in 2007), it was 덕원(Togwon) [21] * From the 2015 video at 11:33, you can see the sign on the platform saying 옥평(Ongpyong)-문천(Munchon)-세길(Segil). [22] * According to 조선향토대백과, an encyclopedia co-written by South and North Korea, 덕원동(Togwon-dong) was renamed into 세길동(Segil-dong) in 1977. [23] 오모군 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation → Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule – There was no military occupation of the territory and post annexation it was civilian not miltary rule, so the article title is evidently based on a mistake. :Note Eyal Benvenisti (2004). The International Law of Occupation. Princeton University Press. pp. 108–. ISBN 0-691-12130-3. a pro-Israel lawyer who writes "Since 1948 it had been under Jordanian administration and Jordan claimed to have annexed it in 1950".Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – NHS COVID-19 critical care hospitals → UK coronavirus field hospitals – I feel the title is now outdated - although it was accurate when the first few hospitals were announced. * Not all the hospitals listed are "NHS" hospitals (we have HSC and GHA hospitals listed as well); * @Admiral Rolland: makes a good point of COVID-19 vs coronavirus in the title (though this may be the more controversial change); * and not all the hospitals are critical care hospitals, some are palliative and others are recovery (e.g. Nightingale North West [25]). All in all, UK coronavirus field hospitals is a more inclusive and more accurate title, although UK COVID-19 field hospitals could also work. ArcMachaon (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Non-free architectural work → Template:Non-free proposed architecture – Summary: To make its purpose more clear. This template has a long history, which I'll detail below. The template started off as a fair-use template for photographs of buildings in countries without freedom of panorama, such as the Burj Khalifa. However, a 2012 RfC decided that such images would be allowed on the English Wikipedia as freely licensed in the United States due to lex loci protectionis. Existing photos with this template were migrated under {{FoP-USonly}} when possible (e.g. the uploader took the photo and agreed to a free license) and deleted otherwise per WP:NFCC#1. As a result this template was obsolete, so I repurposed it for proposed works which haven't been built yet, which obviously don't have free images available. In hindsight, that was not the best idea and I should have created it at a clearer title from the start, as many people are still constantly misusing it for architectural works that exist or that used to exist (which may be kept under {{non-free historic image}} if appropriate). I'd like to leave in its place a pseudo-disambiguation that warns people not to use this template and to choose from the following three options (depending on the situation): 1) {{non-free proposed architecture}}; 2) {{FoP-USonly}} with appropriate free license; 3) {{non-free historic image}} (or maybe we could create a new template specifically for destroyed buildings). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Matthew Davis → Matt Davis – Per third party search engines, the use of "Matt" vs. "Matthew" seems to be this subject's WP:COMMONNAME, and has been for almost a decade now. Though he was credited as "Matthew Davis" in Legally Blonde, it seems that most notable credited media after that has him named "Matt Davis", even referred as so during interviews for almost the entirety of the previous decade. (However, moving this to Matt Davis (actor) may be an option as well as it seems he may not be the primary topic for "Matt Davis" or even "Matthew Davis", considering that Matt Davis currently targets Matthew Davis (disambiguation) and per other potentially notable targets on the aforementioned disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Paradisus Judaeorum → Poland was heaven for the nobility, purgatory for town dwellers, hell for peasants, and paradise for Jews – After extensive discussions above there is a clear consensus to move this article, but it is not clear what is the best move. In the end, I decided to stick with sources. Most modern and reliable is Krzyżanowski, and he uses "Polska była niebem dla szlachty, czyśćcem dla mieszczan, piekłem dla chłopów, a rajem dla Żydów." Given the multitude of competing English versions, with different order of parts, using the or not using it, translating words differently peasants/serfs, burghers/townsfolk/towndwellers, I think it makes sense to stick to the most recent Polish work on the topic when it comes to the order. I chose peasants over serfs and town dwellers over townspeople and burghers based on Googlefight. "Poland was" instead of is, as or such is based directly on Krzyżanowski as well. I recognize we could discuss whether to use 'the' or not (Poland was heaven vs Poland was the heaven), but in this case I recommend brevity in this already very long title (not that long titles for proverbs or such are unheard of, see Category:Proverbs. Closing remarks: 1) Latin title is unpopular, goes against WP:USEENGLISH, and there are several possible variants anyway. 2) Just Poland is... is elegant, but does not render the real meaning of this proverb, unlike the full title (Poland is... what? Readers won't know unless they read the article, this is not an Easter Egg entry). Also, Poland is... vs Poland was... is an issue. 3) One could also dispute that the title could be made shorter by removing "Poland was", but again, this deprives the title of crucial content. Again, in the end, I think going with Krzyżanowski, the most up recent in-depth source on this, and sticking as close to it as possible, is the best solution. 4) If we have a strong preference for adding a/the to the title, it's not a big issue, but please be clear where such elements should be added if anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Trang, Thailand → Trang – The de facto convention for the naming of Thai place articles is that the population centre (city/town) gets the plain name, unless disambiguation is required due to the name being shared with other, different places (not including eponymous provinces/districts). The article was at Trang until 2011, when User:Petebutt moved it to Trang, Trang, which I then moved to Trang, Thailand, since there's a Cambodian commune of the same name. However, the commune seems to be very much less significant, and I now think the city should be treated as the primary topic for the plain name. Also, User:Ans recently moved the article to City of Trang, which I have reverted, as it's not in line with current conventions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 19:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mormon Tabernacle Choir → The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square – This article title should be changed to "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square". Since last discussed, things have changed, and the new moniker better meets Wikipedia's 5 naming criterias WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The main objection has been WP:COMMONNAME, which is no longer the case. Recognizability – Besides being referred to as "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square" by the news media, Google Searches indicate that the common usage has shifted to "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. If you google "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", Google will link to Wikipedia, but replace our title with "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square", a clear indication that Google's algorithms believe that a shift has happened. Additionally, "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" may no longer NPOV. Anecdotally, I can affirm that using "Mormon" elicits a quite visceral response from a large section of the "Mormon" population. If widespread, per WP:NPOVNAME, the current name would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Epachamo (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – ViacomCBS International Media Networks → ViacomCBS Networks International – The new company has been established for 4 months now and the name "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" not the official name of the division nor was it ever. A Google search for "ViacomCBS Networks International" returns 38,800 results ("ViacomCBS Networks International") whereas a Google search for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" returns just 22 ("ViacomCBS International Media Networks"). The inconsistency between the article title name is also very confusing. Looking at Google Trends, "ViacomCBS Networks International" is more popular, although there doesn't seem to be enough data for Google to return a proper Google Trends page [26]. In fact, Google Trends shows that no one searches for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks", but the data seems incomplete. Changing the name of the article would also make it constant with the other ViacomCBS international divisions that all follow the format ViacomCBS Networks placename as well as the official name of the division that is used by ViacomCBS. – BrandonXLF (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Yakuts → Sakha people – The main page for Sakha is referred to as Sakha. There are constantly more searches on Google for "Sakha" rather than "Yakutia."[2] Sakha yields nearly 7 million results on Google,[3] whereas Yakutia yields 5 million.[4] Google Ngram shows that "Sakha" has more than twice the usage of "Yakutia" in books, with "Sakha" being the preferred term since shortly after the republic's renaming to the indigenous "Sakha."[5] JSTOR has 2500 results for "Sakha,"[6] but only 1600 results for "Yakutia."[7] There are many more searches for "the Sakha" than for "the Yakuts."[8] There are more searches on average for "Sakha language" than for "Yakut language."[9] "Sakha culture" is much more widespread in books than "Yakut culture."[10] There are 2.80 million results for "the Sakha people" on Google,[11] while "the Yakut people" has only 1.58 million results.[12] Modern scholarly works dealing with the Sakhalar such as Siberian Village by Bella Jordan and Terry Bychkov-Jordan and Words like Birds by Jenanne Ferguson also use "Sakha" rather than the exonym "Yakut." Visits by the Sakhalar to places in the modern day also have them being called "Sakha," such as when delegations from Sakha visited Fort Ross in California.[13] Arumdaum (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://indiarailinfo.com/departures/junagarh-road-jnrd/10437#st
  2. ^ https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Yakutia,Sakha
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=sakha
  4. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=yakutia
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Yakutia+is%2CSakha+is&year_start=1988&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CYakutia%20is%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSakha%20is%3B%2Cc0
  6. ^ https://www-jstor-org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/action/doBasicSearch?Query=sakha
  7. ^ https://www-jstor-org.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/action/doBasicSearch?Query=yakutia
  8. ^ https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=The%20Yakuts,The%20Sakha
  9. ^ https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Yakut%20language,Sakha%20language
  10. ^ https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Sakha+culture%2CYakut+culture&year_start=1990&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSakha%20culture%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CYakut%20culture%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CSakha%20culture%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CYakut%20culture%3B%2Cc0
  11. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=the+sakha+people&oq=the+sakha+people&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i60l2j69i65j69i60l3.1412j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  12. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=the+yakut+people&oq=the+yakut+people&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j69i60j69i65l2j69i60l3.1883j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
  13. ^ https://www.fortross.org/sakha-story.htm
  14. ^ https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/articles/integrated-schools
  15. ^ https://www.forthillcollege.co.uk/
  16. ^ https://www.eani.org.uk/parents/types-of-school/school-type/post-primary/fort-hill-integrated-college-lisburn
– FortHillIntegratedCollege (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ustashe → Ustaše – This article was renamed Ustashe several years ago without any discussion or consensus. The user who made the move presented no evidence that Ustashe is the more common spelling. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Uw-nyi → ? – The current title does not clearly convey the scope of this user warning, which regards meaningless filenames. I was considering moving it to Template:Uw-filename, but unfortunately that name is already taken. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Toilets → Template:Defecation – This useful and relevant template contains all sorts of defecation-related material. I think it's misleading to call it toilets and it should be named after the primary topic of defecation. Toilets etc. are clearly related but I think based on what is included in this template it should be renamed to better reflect its very useful purpose. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly incomplete requests

See "Request all associated moves explicitly"

References

References generally should not appear here. Use {{reflist-talk}} in the talk page section with the requested move to show references there.


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
11:20, Sunday, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=954720601"