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:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen.
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 our article titling policy and our 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, such as when a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or if the page to be moved is protected from moves. In these circumstances, administrator help is required to move a page, see below: § Requesting technical moves.
  • A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus, see below: § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to use the requested move process in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.
  • Unregistered users and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users do not have the capability to move pages. They must request moves using this process.

Most move requests are processed by a group of regular contributors who are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions, non-binding precedents, and page moving procedures. Requests are generally processed after seven days, although backlogs often develop. If there is a clear consensus after this time, or if the requested move is uncontroversial or technical, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the closer may choose to re-list the request to allow more time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus". For the processes involved in closing requests, performing moves, and cleaning up after moves, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. For a list of all processed moves, see Special:Log/move.

To contest a close, the Move review process 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 can not 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:

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. If any of the following apply to a desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:

  • 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.

If a desired move is uncontroversial and technical in nature (e.g. spelling), please feel free to move the page yourself. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. In either case, if you are unable to complete the move, request it below.

{{subst:RMassist|<!--old page name, without brackets-->|<!--requested name, without brackets-->|reason= <!--reason for move-->}}
This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move it to the Contested technical requests section.

  • Alternatively, if the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is another page in the way, you can ask for the deletion of the other page. This may apply, for example, if the other page is currently a redirect to the article to be moved, a redirect with no incoming links, or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history. To request the other page be deleted, add the following code to the top of the page that is in the way:
{{db-move|<!--page to be moved here-->|<!--reason for move-->}}
This will list the undesired page for deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G6. If the page is a redirect, place the code above the redirection. For a list of articles being considered for uncontroversial speedy deletion, see Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

  • Lohengrin (Wagner) → Lohengrin (opera) (move (@subpage)) – This technical request is to restore a move that the editor later realized was controversial back to its original name, now that discussions have concluded and consensus has thankfully already been reached. The first discussions are here that further developed into more pertinent discussion here, the latter of which advocates for this technical move. The original editor was the only one who opposed. (I am the uninvolved editor requesting this on behalf of this consensus.) – Prhartcom (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carpe Noctem → Carpe noctem (move (@subpage)) – per MOSCAPS – Primergrey (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

  • Perhaps I should have placed the Lohengrin request (above) here instead; apologies. Prhartcom (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

Shortcut:

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. 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, as 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 propose moving more than one page—for example, moving a disambiguation page in order to move another page to that title—see "Requesting multiple page moves" below.)

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, using this format:

{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). Leave the Subject/headline blank, as the template automatically creates the heading "Requested move 22 March 2015". Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. The template must be substituted.

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

Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations need not be neutral. Strive to make your point as best you can; use evidence (such as Ngrams and pageview statistics) and make reference to applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topic. After the nomination has been made, nominators may nevertheless add a separate bullet point to support their nomination, but should add "as nominator" (for example,  * '''Rename, as nominator''': ...). Most nominators, however, simply allow the nomination itself to indicate what their opinion is. Nominators may also participate in the discussion along with everyone else, and often should.

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 default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any 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.

Relisting[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions § Relisting

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. Preferably, a reason for the relist will be given. When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions.

To relist a move request discussion, simply type <small>'''Relisted'''. ~~~~</small> before the initial requester's first timestamp (see this diff for an example). This can also be done by using {{subst:Relisting}}, which signs the relisting automatically. The RMCD bot uses the new timestamp to relist the entry on this page.

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. One option is 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.

March 22, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Vistaprint → Cimpress – This page is about the company Vistaprint N.V., which changed its name to Cimpress N.V. back in November 2014. Vistaprint is now a brand within the larger Cimpress company. Ticker symbol, financials, patents, and the bulk of references in this article refer to the parent company Cimpress, rather than being specific to the Vistaprint division. There is page history at Cimpress (due to my incorrect move attempt), so this move requires an administrator. I will update the article after the move with new logo, financials, etc. and create a new section specific to the Vistaprint division.Relisted -- Calidum 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Pjhansen (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Student activity center → Student center – the words "Student union and "Student's union" has a close similarity that causes confusion. Outside the US a Student's union is a student government or a governing body for students in the US the "student union" is typically a physical building. In the US there are either a "Student center" or "Student union" few if not NONE called it a "Student activity center". Currently "Student union" is being used as a disambiguation page to define the two, which is why this article shouldn't be renamed "student union". That page helps define the confusion between the two. Since the creation of "Student activity center" this article is encompassing the true meaning of a "Student center" or "Student union" at Universities."Student Center" page is being used as a redirect. This article should be truly called a "Student center" which is a physical building that encompasses an environment for students of a university or college. No school calls this a "student activity center" but the use of any "student center" or "student union" is dependent on the school, the word "student center" or "student union" is the language used at universities and colleges across the US. You can google and school or find almost one or the other. Beyond this, very few or if any are managed by students or a student governing bodies in the US. Even outside the US Universities that do a "student center" or "student union" are usually a welcome location or hub of uses similar to the uses by US colleges and universities Pwojdacz (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

March 21, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Deerfoot (runner) → Deerfoot – The location "Deerfoot" currently redirects to Deerfoot Trail, a freeway in Calgary, which was apparently named after the runner. I would have thought therefore that per long term significance, and the fact that the current redirect target is not actually called "Deerfoot" itself (it's called "Deerfoot Trail"), the runner should be at the main page location, with a simple hatnote to the freeway. The only counterargument would be if the freeway is frequently and commonly known by the shorthand "Deerfoot" moniker, in which case it would also be a contender. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Carbon (fiber) → Carbon fiber – The current title is misleading. This isn't about a fiber called carbon, but about a fibre made of carbon. The proposed new title currently redirects to carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), which is a composite material made of carbon fibers. Although the latter is sometimes called "carbon fiber", this is a case of slang or jargon and results in the suboptimal title we have for this article. An analogous case is that glass fiber, which is about fibers of glass, and fiberglass, which is about the composite material composed of glass fibers.
    As an encyclopedia we should should answer the question "What is carbon fiber?" straightforwardly. How do other reference works do that? The Oxford Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering defines carbon fibre as "a filament reinforcement used in composites". The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea starts its entry by saying "carbon fibre is mainly produced by separating a chain of carbon atoms from polyacrynitrile through heating and oxidation". There are many book-length treatments of carbon fiber and CFRP. All of the following treat "carbon fiber" as referring to fibers of carbon and not to their composites: G. M. Jenkins and K. Kawamura, Polymeric Carbons: Carbon Fibre, Glass and Char; G. Savage, Carbon–Carbon Composites; D. D. L. Chung, Carbon Fiber Compositse; P. Morgan, Carbon Fibers and their Composites; or J.-B. Donnet, S. Rebouillat, T. K. Wang and J. C. M. Peng (eds.), Carbon Fibers, 3rd ed. But it isn't only specialist sources that take "carbon fiber" to mean the fiber. Here is an article from Car and Driver. Here is how Formula 1 explains it. Here is about.com. Here is How Stuff Works. Here is Zoltek. They all start with the basic sense of "carbon fiber": fibers made of carbon.
    Both this article and the one on the composite were viewed about 60,000 times in the last 90 days. See here and here. The redirect was viewed about 14,000 times. Switching the hatnote from one article to another will not greatly inconvenience users. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Forer effect → Barnum effect – "Barnum effect" is the commonly used name, as can be seen in the sources currently cited by this article, or discovered by some simple independent searching. groupuscule (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Boomtown Boulder → Boomtown Accelerator – I am an employee at Boomtown Boulder, and one of the directors asked me to change the name of the Wikipedia article to Boomtown Accelerator, to reflect the fact that we are a startup accelerator.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Egrah (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Hard disk drive → Hard drive – The name "hard drive" is more commonly used than "hard disk drive." Here are the Google search results of "hard drive" vs "hard disk drive": *hard drive - 271 million results *hard disk drive - 35.1 million results Google Books: *hard drive - 2,380,000 results *hard disk drive - 113,000 results Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC). Sam Hnri (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – London Hilton Hotel → London Hilton on Park Lane Hotel – The official name of this hotel is London Hilton on Park Lane Hotel. London Hilton Hotel - these are three keywords, that may refer to over 30 other Hilton hotels in London (it's not a unique title for the hotel in question), which is confusing and incorrectly. According to the Wikipedia guides about titles of articles they should be :"The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." So to distinguish this article, it should be moved to London Hilton on Park Lane Hotel. Also nowhere around the web this exact hotel appears with the exact name "London Hilton hotel". --Relisted. Sunrise (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Valgetova (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Islamophobia → Anti-Islamic sentiment – As the opening text of the article presents: "Anti-Islamic sentiment or Islamophobia is a term for prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim. This is prejudice and, in a straight forward way, should be studied, researched and tackled as such. At essence the current title fundamentally fails WP:AT. The topic area is not a Phobia and, as far as the Venn diagram system of analysis is concerned, the topic of this form of prejudice certainly does not fall within the category of anxiety disorder. Sources are contain a great many topic relevant references to terms such as "against muslims", "against islamic", "anti-Islamic", "anti-Islam" which provide further justification for the move. Clearly issues related to presentation as Islamophobia can be presented in the article but I don't think we should place the cart before the horse. The topic should be treated in the same way in Wikipedia as in any parallel condition of prejudice such as: Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Christian sentiment, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Mormonism and other articles that use the same "Anti-..." format common to articles found in Category:Persecution and connected categories. Many other topic areas are currently catered for by the 209 uses in Wikipedia of the "Persecution of ..." article title format. Also at issue is that "Islamophobia" is a neologism and this is shown in that the article is found both in Category:Words coined in the 1980s and Category:Political neologisms. See also WP:NEOLOGISM. As mentioned in the article section Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use: Salman Rushdie criticized the coinage of the word 'Islamophobia' saying that it "was an addition to the vocabulary of Humpty Dumpty Newspeak. It took the language of analysis, reason and dispute, and stood it on its head". I see the point and don't think that this is the kind of content that benefits an encyclopaedia. GregKaye 07:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

March 20, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Dunlop Tyres → Dunlop Tires – WP:TIES - The company is owned by US based company Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company(75%) and Japanese based Sumitomo Rubber Industries(25%), both of which self identify using the Tire spelling on their corporate sites[[6]] and [[7]] and publications, the same as Dunlop Tires[[8]] and [[9]]. Also the corporate headquarters of Dunlop Tires is located in Buffalo, NY, United States per this article. On Goodyear's corporate site, Dunlop is linked to and uses the tire spelling in documents and the main corporate website. While the company was originally a UK company, it is no longer and there are no tires manufactured by Dunlop in the UK anymore. While Goodyear sells tires under the name Dunlop Tyre in the UK and a separate company was licensed the name for sales in Australia, it is in name only for marketing purposes for the region and for the purposes of DBA, not the actual name of the company and how it self identifies within it's corporate structure. Hence, I would cite that the article has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation and therefore should use the English of that nation. re: WP:TIES - 74.104.150.176 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC) -
  • (Discuss) – Without Me → Without Me – was moved without discussion to the disambiguated title; the song is the clear primary topic and the existence of another song with the same name doesn't change that. – -- Calidum 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Fort Hill, Roxbury → Fort Hill, Boston – An out-of-town author on a talk page for the National Register of Historic Places Wikiproject found the designation of Fort Hill as being part of Roxbury to be misleading, and I find the argument persuasive. Fort Hill is a neighborhood/historic district in the city of Boston, MA that comprises a part of the Roxbury neighborhood. Moving the page seems to be more consistent with naming conventions. Chambers617 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Peacham → Peacham (disambiguation) – "Peacham" is the name of precisely one thing that has (or is ever likely to have) an article on Wikipedia. It is a small town in Vermont, Peacham, Vermont. Normally, this would lead to Peacham being a redirect to that town. However, currently Peacham is a disambiguation page which also lists two late gentlemen with the surname "Peacham". These two men are not particularly significant, and in any case are partial title matches, which are only rarely even included within a disambiguation page. (See Lake (disambiguation), as an example pulled off the very top of my head.) We did a RM here not too long ago; unfortunately, the proposer thought we should move the article on the town to Peacham, which is a complete no-go under WP:USPLACE. Four different editors (see above) agreed that Peacham should redirect straight to the town, but the closer did not seem to take that into consideration, and then when I did it myself, I was first rebuffed for doing it sloppily (which I did) and then was ultimately reverted. So I leave it to your capable hands. Red Slash 02:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

March 19, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Fantasea (mixtape) → Fantasea – The Azealia Banks mixtape has been viewed 14,859 times in the last three months, while the cruise line has been visited 581 times in the same period. I suggest that the mixtape be given the plain title, although instead of adding a parenthetical disambiguator onto the article for the cruise line, I propose adding "Adventure Cruising" to it. The cruise line clearly lists the service as "Fantasea Adventure Cruising", and I feel as though this title would be a better, clearer alternative for the cruise line even if the Azealia Banks mixtape was not involved. Under these proposed renamings, the scope of the cruise line article would be much clearer at quick glance, while the Azealia Banks mixtape will be just as accessible as before under a more concise title that does not cause the other article to suffer. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Suicide response → Template:Crisis response – The name of this template is "Suicide response". Perhaps it should have a softer name, like "Crisis response", so that if it is used, then the user is less burdened with the stigma of having a suicide label on their page. The text of content in the template uses the word "crisis" but not "suicide", so eventually the word "suicide" is not the preferred term anyway. The word "suicide" only shows up in the Wikicode template, and perhaps the word "suicide" is best to not use at all in a permanent record associated with someone's useraccount. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Leverage (disambiguation) → Leverage – I noticed as part of an RfD discussion that the redirect currently at Leverage used to be a disambiguation page, but it was moved here some time ago, and replaced with a redirect to mechanical advantage, which does not appear to be the primary topic. Since then, users have tried to redirect to the dab page a couple times, but this is improper per WP:MALPLACED. Google shows a mixed bag of results, with a slight preference for Leverage (finance), but since I work in finance I assume this is skewed, and in the absence of a clear primary topic, disambiguation is better. I had suggested this at RfD but a helpful user pointed out that my request is actually a move proposal, so here it is. Ivanvector (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – CHADS2 score → CHADS score – This article is about both CHADS2 score and CHA2DS2-VASc score, and the latter one is preferred. Therefore, we should move this page to the common denominator of both scoring systems, and after that explain CHA2DS2-VASc first and then the older CHADS2 at the end of the article. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Großer Tiergarten → Grosser Tiergarten – It might be nice to find some way to avoid the "ß" in the title. That's a character not found in the English alphabet, and not merely a diacritic. I suspect there are lots of English-speaking people who have no idea know how to pronounce it. I wouldn't submit this but for the recent successful RM at Talk:Uwe Dassler. There was no direct response to a prior comment about that in the previous RM for this page. (See also WP:ß.) —BarrelProof (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 18, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell → Martindale-Hubbell – Martindale-Hubbell and LexisNexis are no longer associated with each other as per the joint venture with Internet Brands which was finalized in April 2014. Martindale is owned by Internet Brands. LexisNexis is owned by Reed Elsevier. They are two separate companies.[14] MH121Chanlon (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jon Hugger → Johnny the Bull – Wrestled under this name in two of the largest promotions in the world (WCW and WWF/E) for five years. During this time he became a Hardcore and Tag champion in WCW and a Hardcore champ in WWE. WWE did modify the name by adding "Stamboli" to it but I think this is inconsequential. He went on to wrestle under other names (most notably Rellik) but none gained as much notoriety. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC) LM2000 (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

March 17, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Rafa Benítez → Rafael Benítez – Should not have been moved to current title without discussion in the first place. "Rafael Benitez" outnumbers "Rafa Benitez" in Google News searches. While some publications use both names, more major publications use "Rafael" exclusively than do "Rafa". Mosmof (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dot the i → Dot the I – It's common practice for marketing materials for films to be in all lower-case, and it's common practice (in fact, policy) here on Wikipedia to ignore these stylings and use title case for composition titles. See WP:TITLETM, MOS:CT, MOS:TM (the reference to thirtysomething is particularly relevant), MOS:CAPS, also WP:NCCAPS, WP:NCFILM. The last requested move above seemed to be a poor close, as did the resulting move review, and maybe a couple of years later, now the heat has died down, it's time to revisit this. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

March 16, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – Motorcycle tyre → Motorcycle tire – While I understand the whole not giving precedence to one flavor of English over another, there are many many articles about tires on Wikipedia, all but 1 or 2 that are not company or organization names use the spelling of tire over tyre, I beleive the consistency of the use of tire over tyre on such a wide number of pages directs us to a variety of reasons for the change, uniformity, consensus, and standardization of use are all reasonable and acceptable reasons. I believe it's one of the small things that can be done to improve acceptance and integrity of Wikipedia. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Bell Pottinger Private → Bell Pottinger – Although the company is legally Bell Pottinger Private Limited, it's never referred to as that, always just as Bell Pottinger. The new logo, which I'll upload to Commons, is also simply 'Bell Pottinger'. I have a COI as an employee of the company and I'm working on the article with Richfife. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – All Day (song) → All Day (Cody Simpson song) – There are other notable songs called "All Day" particularly that of Kanye West featuring Theophilus London, Allan Kingdom & Paul McCartney. Make "All Day (song)" a redirect instead to refer to other "All day" songs as wellwerldwayd (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 15, 2015[edit]

  • (Discuss) – R.E.D. (Ne-Yo album) → R.E.D. – Since the last two move requests, the 2010 film has been changed from "RED" to "Red". Now, in terms of things which are just called "Red or "RED" (i.e. excluding The R.E.D. Album, which I highly doubt will cause any serious confusion), this is the only subject in block capitals (with or without full stops). Unreal7 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Great Smyrna Offensive → Great Offensive – I believe User:Central Data Bank's move was in violation of WP:TITLE policy: "do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising". "Great Smyrna Offensive" seems to be a made-up phrase that is not used elsewhere at all ([20][21]). Many authors use "the Great Offensive", as a Google search indicates: [22] shows Stanford J. Shaw, Edward Erickson, George Gawrych, Gérard Chaliand, as well as literally every Turkish historian writing in English use the term. I propose to move back to "Great Offensive". Cfsenel (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

Shortcut:
  • (Discuss) – Sia (musician) → Sia Furler – Despite the timing of this RM, this is not for either of the requests above that just failed to gain consensus. This is a request for a move back to natural disambiguation. NATURAL says to "choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." Parenthetical disambiguation should only be used "if natural disambiguation is not possible." Although the subject is most commonly referred to in sources by her mononym, she is occasionally referred to as Sia Furler: Billboard, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail, New York Times, etc. Additionally, she uses the name Sia Furler in writing credits for other artists (a notable aspect of her career), and her debut album OnlySee was released under her full name. Therefore, the move to "Sia (musician)" should have never taken place. The discussion there was mainly based on WP:COMMONNAME; I'm not arguing that "Sia" is not the subject's most common name, but as mentioned, Wikipedia prefers natural disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation where possible. And using natural disambiguation will spare us silly wars over whether "musician" or "singer" is the better disambiguator (see the convoluted last RM). –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Zenebishi family → Zenevisi noble family – As per common name (Zenevisi vs. Zenebissi/Zenebisi/Zenebishi) and scholarly use; see previous section. The article was originally named "Zenevisi family", under which it received DYK, until being moved (without discussion) by User:Ujkrieger (first to "Zenevisi Family" - note capitalization; secondly to "Zenebishi Family", etc). The most common spelling is "Zenevisi". Furthermore, I think noble family is appropriate (instead of just family). Zoupan 10:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Cypress Hills massacre → Cypress Hills Massacre – Page is being edit warred back and forth between the two titles. As nominator, I have no preference, but it needs to be determined through consensus and not edit warring. Note that there is also a current RFC on this. I am simultaneously posting at WP:RM to prevent anyone from arguing that the RFC was "out of process", and to gain a wider audience for gauging consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes → May 2014 Odessa clashes – The previous RM was closed as removing "2 May" from 2014 Odessa clashes. As a result, the article was broadened. Then it was split into a newer article and the same article dealing with May protests in Odessa. I still think a "2" is unnecessary to exactly insert in order to search for this article. Some or many articles that deal with one-day events do not use an exact date, unlike September 11 attacks. I tried asking others to split the article up, but no one responded. Therefore, I'm sure that the title change won't affect the article itself. --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – I Don't Kiss → J'embrasse pas – The English sources use the current English title. However, many other English sources also use the original French title. One and another and another use French title as main title. WP:NCF encourages using commonly-used name, be it either native name or translated name. I hope the proposed title is more common. --Relisted. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – South African Premier Division → Premier Soccer League Premier Division – The name "South African Premier Division was created purely for this page. The two divisions are the premier division and the first division, but the league's name is the premier soccer league. The most commonly used name for the division is the PSL, but the name Premier Soccer League is used for the entire league. I'd also propose that each division's season follow the policy would also follow the Currie Cup. Thus 2014-15 Premier Soccer League Premier Division Crazydude22 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Froot (album) → Froot – This is the only article listed on the disambiguation page that goes by the plain title Froot (except for the title track, understandably). The other articles (Dan Froot, Froot Loops, fRoots, Fruit) are easily accessible by their current and more specific titles, and would not suffer from the alternate spelling being given to the Marina and the Diamonds album. Not to mention the fact that Froot Loops are never simply called "Froot", and Dan Froot has only seen visited 175 times in three months. It is within reasonable assumption that readers typing in that spelling are looking for this record, and those that were looking for actual fruit will be well on their way with a hatnote. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Melee → Melee (warfare) – With the several newer usages of the term "melee" in recent times, the primary usage could arguably be the target of the redirect Melee (tournament) or article Melee (gaming) (which seems like a subject that was spun off from the aforementioned redirect.) However, given the historical significance of the currently-established primary topic, the best option would be to move the disambiguation page to the ambiguous title, establishing the lack of a primary topic, so readers can determine which topic they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Athletics (British) → Athletics (sport) – My request to move the article back to the title that was previously agreed by consensus was reverted by the person who moved it. If you look at the archives, we can see a variation of the current title (that was moved without discussion) was already rejected on the basis that I explained above. I'm happy to discuss other possibilities apart from the previous title, but I think the British one is inherently problematic on several fronts, most notably that it effectively excludes non-British varieties of English that use the term (which, population-wise, actually outnumber the British ones). SFB 20:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Acura NSX (2015) → Honda NSX – There's already a Honda NSX article, which details the first and second generations of the car, as with most car articles on Wikipedia. I don't see the point of this page, seeing as it could be merged with the second generation section of the Honda NSX article. Blackjays1 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Beatles (terrorist cell) → ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles – I don't think that we can name them "The Beatles" in Wikipedia's voice either with or without disambiguation. The reaction of Ringo Starr to the naming included, "It's bullshit. They're against everything we stood for". Usage of this designation was first propagated in the British press who are, I think, known for their ability to go with any spin to get a catchy title, content or photo regardless of any ethical consideration. Astoundingly, within this type of context, Wikipedia persists in talking about "reliable sources". As far as I know the four militants concerned have not specifically been identified as being a "cell". All we know is that they were four of the militants that were used in direct connection with non-local prisoners. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that they call themselves "the Beatles" and, even if they do have a name, there is no evidence that this is it. This is just an offensive reference first adopted by some of the prisoners probably to help then try to sanitise their greatly stressful situation and then used, I think, disproportionately by sensation seeking sources. These people are not "The Beatles". I think that something like the WP:NATURAL disambiguation that I have suggested should be used. GregKaye 11:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jihadi John → Mohammed Emwazi – A recent RfC on the topic "Should the article assume Emwazi is Jihadi John?" got overwhelming support. As an alternate article name I had also suggested something like the more long winded: The ISIL killer of captives presented in some media as "Jihadi John". I appreciate that such a title contravenes a number of Wikipedia guidelines but, when killing aid workers etc. is not jihad and when his real name seems not to be John and when the name of a British icon of the standing of John Lennon is tarnished by this most absurd of associations then I think that there is a strong case that WP:IAR applies. A more straightforward move would be to Mohammed Emwazi. GregKaye 10:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chihuahua white pine → Pinus strobiformis – WP:FLORA is the guideline that governs the naming of plant articles. It states Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon. The Chihuahua pine (better known as the Southwestern white pine) has little if any economic or agricultural use, despite the article's undocumented claim that the seeds were used as a food by Native Americans. Therefore, it should be titled under its scientific name Pinus strobiformis. ChuckBiggs2 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Northern Aegean → North Aegean – These two articles have been moved after a slightly overhasty discussion on Talk:Western Greece#Requested move 21 February 2015. In the meantime I did some research on general naming customs pointing to the form with the -ern suffix stressing the geographical significance (one could loosely say "northernmost" and "southernmost"), regularly being used if there is something central in between. The form without the -ern suffix however is regularly used as a two-tiered disambiguator between North and South or between East and West (see the cases of Germany, Korea, America). In the case of the Aegean regions, while both versions are colloquially used, this translates to North Aegean vs. South Aegean being the more appropriate names.
    While these findings might be seen as WP:OR (someone might find literature on this though), here's now the objective facts: "North Aegean" in literature is clearly more common (~4:1) than "Northern Aegean". Also, "South Aegean" is more common (~3:2) than "Southern Aegean", although less clearly. While in the case of the other administrative regions of Greece, our recent move was absolutely justified, these two articles need to be moved back. While consistency might be considered a nice thing, general naming customs and WP:COMMONNAME IMHO leave us with no other option. PanchoS (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Greek Muslims → Greek-speaking Muslims – The title of the article infers that people who are Greek speaking and Muslim are Greeks, when their unique communities now resident in Turkey have historically not identified with Greek identity. It represents an erroneous position, which when it comes to other similar communities with complex linguistic and other identities (like the Arvanites or Slavic speakers in Greece), they are not referred to as Albanians, or Macedonians/Bulgarians, because people within those communities may disagree with such names. For more see below:relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Resnjari (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Chicago 'L' → Chicago "L" – WP style is to use double quote marks, not single. And most sources, including those cited in the article, use double quotes. It's not clear how this ended up with single quotes, given that sources and our MOS both go the other way. So let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Ram Kinker Baij → Ramkinkar Baij – The page was moved from "Ramkinkar Baij" to its current title in 2010 (by @Ekabhishek:) with the edit summary "as per Lalit Kala Akademi listing", but usage in the article itself, in the related book and film titles, and in Google hits suggests that "Ramkinkar" is used much more often than either "Ram Kinkar" or "Ram Kinker". PamD 12:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway → John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway – Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, which "sets out guidelines for achieving visual and textual consistency in biographical articles and in biographical information in other articles", has recently been revised as § Child named for parent or predecessor (WP:JR) to provide that a comma should not be inserted before "Jr." or "Sr." This follows an RfC discussion which cited numerous style guides which supported that a comma before "Jr." or "Sr." must be accompanied by another comma afterwards (unless at the end of a sentence, etc.) but the trend is to omit the comma entirely. Although some "official" sources may be formatted differently (and various "official" sources may differ), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title" (WP:COMMONNAME; see also WP:OFFICIAL), and Wikipedia routinely corrects incorrect punctuation in quoted sources (see MOS:QUOTE). Thus, we should follow Wikipedia's style guide. In summary: *John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (incorrect punctuation and against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway (acceptable punctuation but against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway (correct punctuation and follows MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library (incorrect punctuation and against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Library (acceptable punctuation but against MOS) *John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library (correct punctuation and follows MOS) —sroc 💬 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jesús "Chuy" García → Chuy Garcia – In his professional and public life Commissioner García goes almost exclusively by the nickname Chuy. Per WP:Commonname I think it would be better if the article title reflected that. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Template:Refimprove → Template:Ref improve – I propose to move this template to {{Ref improve}}, replacing {{Refimprove}} with a redirect to the new title. This matter has been raised many times at WT:TW and was mentioned also at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Yobot. In my view, the "canonical" name of a template should be as clear as possible, and this can be done by spacing out the lexical components of the title. I note also that all the related templates with multi-word titles have spaces between the words. The motivation for this request is that Twinkle lists the more friendly name, "ref improve", but bots come along afterwards and change it to the canonical name, "refimprove". I think it is neater to be able to list "ref improve" in the list of article maintenance tags, so it would be great to be able to move the actual template to this title. Needless to say, all existing titles would be maintained as redirects. — relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)This, that and the other (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Smithers (name) → Smithers (surname) – Smithers (surname) currently confusingly redirects to Smith; yet we have a surname article for Smithers, so this should be moved to that title, to indicate the scope of this article, as surname articles should use "surname", while "name" covers names that are both surnames and given names, and "given name" is for given names. This article does not include any given name variants. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Government-owned corporation → State-owned enterprise – As discussed and basically agreed upon above, "state-owned" is the slightly broader, but less fuzzy concept. Various different definitions of "government" exist, ranging from a synonym of "state" to the mere executive branch or what in U.S. terminology is called administration. Also, as discussed there, not all state-owned enterprises are organized as corporations. State-owned enterprise (SOE) is common terminology. I prefer this to be formally discussed befor making the move though. --PanchoS (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC) PanchoS (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – DHS (disambiguation) → DHS – DHS redirects to United States Department of Homeland Security. Today, the redirect was changed into a disambiguation page. I have reverted the change, as there is already a disambiguation page (this page) and am opening this move discussion to gauge consensus on whether the disambiguation page should move to DHS or the redirect should stay where it is. All links to DHS have been disambiguated (I didn't know this page existed until I went to create it). There were 52 links to DHS, of which 49 were meant for the Homeland Security department. Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mandrake (plant) → Mandrake – Primary meaning's the plant. According to this, "Mandrake (plant)" has been viewed 16703 times in the last 30 days, while according to this, "Mandrake" has been viewed a mere 1378 times in the last 30 days. What of the other stuff on the dab page? The band has 195 views, the comic book character 4300, the play 1437, the album 669, Leon 276, TV series 763, Mandrake Press 154, Mandrake of Oxford 160 and Tom 396. That's a total of 8350 views for the non-plants: less than half as many hits as "Mandrake (plant)". --Relisted. Number 57 14:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Battle on the Ice (Lake Peipus) → Battle on the Ice (1242) – Noting multiple undiscussed moves of this topic (with use of admin tools to leave no redirects behind!), I request discussion. I believe "Battle on the Ice" is one proper noun name of this, but not "Battle of the ice". Appending the year (1242) is helpful for clarity, I think. "Battle of Lake Peipus" is also possible. -- doncram 14:48, 14 February 2015 (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.
The current Wikipedia time is:
17:33, Sunday, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=649265842"