Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Closing instructions

Click here to purge this page

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 move 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 a consensus is reached after this time, a mover will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or be as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

The Move review process can be used to contest a move. It is designed to evaluate a contested close of a move discussion to determine if the close was reasonable, or whether it was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines.

When not to use this page[edit]

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

Undiscussed moves[edit]

Anyone may move a page without discussion if:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has not been any discussion (especially recent discussion) about the title for the page that expresses disagreement with the new target title;
  • And it seems unlikely 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[edit]

If you are unable to complete a technical move, request it below. If this is your first article then please request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

  • 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[edit]

Edit this section if you want to move a request from Uncontroversial to Contested.

Uncontroversial technical requests[edit]

Contested technical requests[edit]

Requests to revert undiscussed moves[edit]

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves[edit]

The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:

  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title;
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title. For technical move requests (e.g. spelling and capitalization fixes), see Requesting technical moves.

Do not put more than one open move request on the same article talk page, because this is not supported by the bot that handles updates to this page. Multiple closed move requests may be on the same page, but each should have a unique section heading.

Requesting a single page move[edit]

To request a single page move, edit at the bottom of the talk page of the article you want moved, without adding a new header, inserting this code:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 22 January 2018" and sign for you.

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

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications, e.g. this page is transcluded to here. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or Noticeboard that might be interested in the move request.

Requesting multiple page moves[edit]

A single template may be used to request multiple related moves. On one of the talk pages of the affected articles, create a request and format it as below. A sample request for three page moves is shown here (for two page moves, omit the lines for current3 and new3). For four page moves, add lines for current4 and new4, and so on. There is no technical limit on the number of multiple move requests, but before requesting very large multi-moves, consider whether a naming convention should be changed first. Discuss that change on the talk page for the naming convention, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople).

{{subst:requested move
| new1 = New title for page 1 with the talk page hosting this discussion
| current2 = Current title of page 2
| new2 = New title for page 2
| current3 = Current title of page 3
| new3 = New title for page 3
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

For example, to propose moving the articles Wikipedia and Wiki, put this template on Talk:Wikipedia, and replace current2 with Wiki. The discussion for all affected articles is held on the talk page of the article at page 1 (Talk:Wikipedia). Do not sign a request with ~~~~ as the template does this automatically. Do not skip pairs of numbers.

RMCD bot automatically places a notice section on the talk page of the additional pages that are included in your request, advising that the move discussion is in progress, where it is, and that all discussion for all pages included in the request should take place at that one location.

Commenting in a requested move[edit]

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. It is a place for rational discussion of whether an article should be renamed.

There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in such discussions:

  • When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., Support or Oppose, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
  • Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
  • Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per WP:AVOIDCOI.
  • Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior Requested Moves. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.

When participating, please consider the following:

  • Ideally editors should be familiar with WP:Article titles, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:MOS (among others) which sets forth community norms for article titles.
  • The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
  • Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
  • Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "• Support Oppose".

Also, just a reminder that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the proposed article title meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current Requested Move process.

Closing instructions[edit]

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting[edit]

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting can be done using {{subst:relisting}}, which also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures). When a 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 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]

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. 29 (Discuss)ions have been relisted.

January 22, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Me Too (hashtag)Me Too (movement) – The current name Me Too (hashtag) is not how this movement is typically referred to. People usually refer to it as the "#MeToo movement" when talking about it in English (at least on Google and news sites if you search for "MeToo" or "Me Too"), though there are many variants of "Me Too" hashtags in different languages. If we were going to keep "hashtag" in the name, it should be MeToo (hashtag) as #MeToo doesn't have a space when used as a hashtag. However, since we can't include the hashtag in the article name, and there are so many variants of hashtags, I suggest we change it to Me Too (movement). This has the additional benefit of making it more inclusive since this title would be less specific to the English variant. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis – With the directions hearing on 19 January, the timeline of this crisis has continued into 2018. The fates of five parliamentarians have not yet been decided and can only be decided after 2017. Regardless of whether potential disqualification of five politicians amounts to a crisis, it is part of the event that this page documents. Leaving the title as is erroneously suggests that eligibility issues only existed in 2017 and were resolved before 2018. This suggested title format, while arguably awkward, would be consistent with political events such as the 2017–18 Iranian protests. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Graham Hill plane crash1975 Arkley Piper PA-23 Aztec crash – Per above discussion, this title is in accordance with the naming convention for aircraft accident articles. I feel that having the name of the pilot in the article title puts too much emphasis on him, and may be in breach of NPOV. Having "plane crash" in the title is unencyclopedic. Leave that phrase to the redtops. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 21, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Tide Pod challengeConsumption of Tide Pods – The actual Tide Pod challenge only occupies a small section of the article. The majority of the article centers around the meme joke that Tide pods look edible and around the health risks surrounding their consumption. It has been brought up that Tide Pod challenge will be the thing people will search for on Google, but Google searches do account for redirect pages and this should still come up. pluma 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM VenusSirius XM Venus – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM Y2KountrySirius XM Y2Kountry – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM PGA Tour RadioSirius XM PGA Tour Radio – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM PatriotSirius XM Patriot – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM NFL RadioSirius XM NFL Radio – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM NHL Network RadioSirius XM NHL Network Radio – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM InsightSirius XM Insight – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM NASCAR RadioSirius XM NASCAR Radio – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM SpotlightSirius XM Spotlight – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM LoveSirius XM Love – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SiriusXM Hits 1Sirius XM Hits 1 – Zacharycook's recent spate of illogical and contradictory RM proposals did have the effect of causing us to notice some inconsistency among our articles about Sirius XM channels: while the vast majority of them have a space between Sirius and XM, a few (including this one) do not. In discussion, WP:WPRS determined that while the company's logo stylizes its name as SiriusXM without a space, in text the company is consistently referred to as Sirius XM with a space, even in its own press releases about itself. Accordingly, this should be moved to Sirius XM with a space. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)AphriaAphria (genus) – Searching for "aphria" on Google, I don't get a single result on the fly genus, only the company. Even searching for "aphria fly" only yields wiki-results+pages about the company. The number of pageviews for Aphria Inc. (1206/30 days) is larger than that for this page (356), even though Aphria Inc. was deleted for part of the last 30 days. Mparrault (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CEX.ioCEX.IO – The page should be moved to CEX.IO, the company name, and in line with how other exchanges are named. prokaryotes (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.  samee  talk 08:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Taiwan independence movementTaiwan independenceTaiwan independence movement means doing something to move from the status quo, for example, 1. Create a new state, 2. Renaming ROC, 3. Separate from China. On the other hand, Taiwan independence often mean an ideology that Taiwan should maintain its independence. This meaning is not capture by the original title, while the proposed title can mean all of them. Most importantly, the title Taiwan independence movement strongly suggest that the wrong idea that Taiwan is not independent.Golopotw (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)Wrecking Ball (song) – The Neil Young song of the same name has no significance, so I redirected it to its album, making this the only song called "Wrecking Ball" on Wikipedia with an article. This song was extremely popular, considering its video of course. JE98 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)List of Spanish Grammy Award winners and nomineesList of Spanish Grammy Award nominees – Given that winners are nominees—the nominees who won—should the article be moved? I think it makes sense, and the creator of the table must have half-way agreed with me because, until I changed it to read "Winner(s) or Nominee(s)", the corresponding column header in the table read "Nominee(s)" (see here). I edited the header to be consistent with the title, but I think the original header actually made more sense, that its original text should be restored, and the article title should receive the same alteration. Also, I propose that all articles with "winners and nominees" in their titles be moved accordingly. Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

January 20, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)OSx86Hackintosh – OSx86 refers to a specific project [2] while the page itself contains general information about installing macOS on non-Apple hardware. These systems are generally known as Hackintoshes. [3][4] Ianmcxa (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Uber (company)Uber – Unlike Apple, Amazon, and Tinder, there is no topic of longstanding historical importance to compete for the primary topic claim against the company, which receives about ten times as many page views as all other reasonably matching topics combined - even those with the umlaut. bd2412 T 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Magic (paranormal)Magic (study of religion) – For some time now, this article has been titled "Magic (paranormal)". I can appreciate why someone not familiar with the study of religion might feel that this is an appropriate title, for in the popular imagination 'magic' is generally associated with ghosts, spells, occultism, and all of that sort of 'spooky' or 'weird' stuff. However, as anyone familiar with the academic literature on this subject (Styers, Hanegraaff, etc) will tell you, this is fundamentally inappropriate. "Magic" is a conceptual category used by scholars for well over a century, and specifically refers to beliefs and practices that have been regarded as being separate from both 'religion' and 'science'. This is most certainly not the same thing as the "paranormal", which is a fairly recent catchall term used to refer to Ufology, cryptozoology, and ghosts, i.e. things regarded as being beyond the "normal". "Magic" and the "paranormal" are very different concepts, and there are no Reliable Sources presenting them as being the same. As part of my recent attempts to really pull this article into shape so that it accurately reflects what the best quality Reliable Sources actually say, I moved the article to "Magic (study of religion)". This is a far more appropriate title, although SnowFire undid my edit, suggesting that I bring the issue to Requested Moves. So that is precisely what I am doing. I hope that there are no objections to such a proposed move? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Upset (disambiguation)Upset – IMO, there is no clear primary topic for "upset". The current page that is there is mostly covered in Underdog. I think the disambiguation page should be located there. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Substitution spliceStop trick – 1 - the term "substitution splice" is less common (check with Google books search), 2 - the term "substitution splice" is not as precise or correct (splicing can be an important part of the process, but is not the deciding factor: reasonable results are possible without splicing). The term "stop trick" is slightly more precise: also editing STOPS the action and the main purpose is to achieve the special effect; the TRICK. 3 - the term "substitution splice" is a relatively new academic fabrication (by Tom Gunning in 1989) and has not been very widely recognised outside academic circles, 4. the most famous practitioner Mélies is quoted as calling it "The trick-by-substitution, soon called the stop trick", thus suggesting a more precise name while accepting a commonly used name. (unfortunately the more precise and less ambiguous name "trick-by-substitution" is not as commonly recognizable.) Joortje1 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 5 The concept of using "substitution splicing not as an obvious special effect, but as an inconspicuous editing technique" (see article) reveals that "substitution splice" is not necessarily the same as the "stop trick" or "trick-by-substitution". "Substitution splicing" apparently means something like: substituting part of a filmed take with part of another take and edit these together into a "temporally continuous whole" (as the referenced source calls it), with or without the noticeable effect of an appearance, disappearance, or transformation caused by differences in the mise-en-scene between takes.Joortje1 (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.  samee  talk 18:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kaya (Canadian singer)Francis Martin (musician) – Topic's primary notability claim, the reason why he has a Wikipedia article at all, was under the name Francis Martin rather than the name Kaya. This was originally created by the subject himself (or his manager) as an advertorial about his current work, while almost completely eliding his actual notability claim (it mentioned the Juno nominations, but failed to connect them to the Francis Martin name he received them under, so it looked like a hoax until I found the sources that clarified who Kaya actually was), and was subsequently cleaned up but left at its original title — but the subject has since tried twice to have it deleted on the grounds that he no longer has the same wide public profile that he had 20 years ago. He has Juno Award nominations under his belt, however, which is the kind of notability claim where we have to keep something about him regardless of his personal wishes — so the appropriate solution here, the one that best balances his personal privacy rights now with his public prominence in the 1990s, is to keep the article about his pop-rock career as Francis Martin while minimizing how much it says about his current life. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Döner kebabDoner kebab – Revert undiscussed move. Reason given was ""Doner" is not an English word", but it is. See OED, Collins, Webster, etc.; standard spelling in contemporary English is "doner kebab". IamNotU (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 19, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Kara TaylorKaraThomas – Kara Taylor changed her pen name from Kara Taylor to Kara Thomas and needs this page moved to the correct name to properly return the correct Google results [1] Casbaim (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Soulcalibur (series)Soulcalibur – After this page was moved, there was no reason to keep the (series) disambiguation. As a very long running and lengthy series, there is more of a chance that people who search Soulcalibur are looking for some game in the series other than the first one. Also per typical VG series precedent. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NatchezNatchez (disambiguation) – While not by an overwhelming margin, the city in Mississippi appears to be the primary topic, and is most likely what most people would think of when they here the name "Natchez"; they are unlikely to think of the Natchez Trace or the Natchez Trace Parkway. Per pageview analysis [6], the city in Mississippi routinely gets 3-4 times more daily views than Natchez people, the city's namesake, and people outside of the area are unlikely to know the origin of the name. (although for some strange reason unknown to me, "Natchez people" received more than 40x more views than average in the day before this request was initiated.) It is also important to take into the consideration the significance of the MS city because of its historical prominence, being more than 300 years old and one of the oldest cities in the United States. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Bneu2013 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 18, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e BragançaMaria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza – All the Braganza's family names are translated in EN-Wikipedia. This lady is also referred with the translated name in several English language bibliography: for example, Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Bragança in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). Also Jean Pailler book cited her as "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Princess Royal of Portugal and Duchess of Braganza" and as "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza". Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Penal law (British)Penal laws – . Although all the laws, no matter where the locality, were British. Logically speaking then, the articles referring to the penal laws of this period should be directed to this one. However, Penal laws should be the article name and the article Penal Laws (Ireland) be merged (and redirected) here. Penal laws and Penal Laws are currently redirects to Penal Laws (Ireland), with no option to investigate the other British penal laws of the period. The caveat is that there is a link at the top of the (Ireland) page which suggests that to investigate English penal laws, you should go to the Penal laws (British) page, which is inconsistent and inaccurate in and of itself. I'm hoping a more knowledgeable editor can fix up my proposal with regard to syntax and placement etc. Thanks in advance. 75.177.79.101 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)DO-248B → ? – The item has been updated to Rev C with a completely new title, the page should be DO-248 or DO-248C. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CarbodiesLTI Limited – As the article now covers the history of this company after its name was changed to "LTI Limited" it seems reasonable per Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES to use the company's latest name. Note that although WP:NCCORP says that the legal status suffix of a company ("Limited" in this case) "is not normally included in the article title", it makes an exception for names that need disambiguating, as this one does to differeniate it from all the other LTIs. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Julian (disambiguation)Julian – Currently, the article at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Julian is the article about the given name Julian. However, I do not think it meets either of the PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. In regards to usage, Julian (emperor) alone typically gets over three times as many page views. The Roman emperor also has rather substantial long-term significance on his own, enough so that I don't think the given name has enough to be considered the primary topic on that ground. Julian also tends to be somewhat of a target for mislinks, usually for someone meaning the emperor ([8] [9]) or the Julian calendar ([10][11]), and mislinks to a disambiguation page are considerably easier to catch and fix. Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Princess KishiSaigū no Nyōgo – (1) WP:COMMONNAME. The only Japanese encyclopedia I could find with a title equivalent to this is Wikipedia, while multiple encyclopedias (including the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten - the best one) use the proposed title - see 徽子女王 vs. 斎宮女御. If one leaves out the macrons (which seem to screw things up; oftentimes the preview pretends no diacritics are present even when they clearly are in the actual book) GBooks comes up with a whole bunch of English-language hits for both forms (27 for "Princess Kishi", 26 for "Saigu no Nyogo", at least right now on my Japanese-set iPad's Safari), but a bunch of the "Princess Kishi" ones appear to be talking about (fictionalized?) versions of her appearing in later historical novels[12] or other artistic works,[13] or about different people altogether[14][15][16] (which makes me wonder about whether "Princess Kishi" should be a disambig page). (2) While Japanese Wikipedia can use 徽子女王 (her actual name and title in kanji) as its article title without choosing one reading over the other, we are arbitrarily deciding to give priority to "Kishi" (a safe assumption based on the standard readings of those kanji) over "Yoshiko" (a reconstruction that was probably closer to her actual name). (3) The proposed title would bring the article in line with Saigū no Nyōgo Shū, which is never called the "Kishi-joō Shū" or anything like that.[17] Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Chia GwechangChang Chia-gwe – Or maybe Zhang Jiakui instead? Sports Reference mangled his name; his surname is Chang (張) and Chia and Gwe are clearly spellings of the characters of his given name (家夔). Bringing this to RM because I'm not sure what the best new title should be. Some articles other athletes who represented Republic of China at the 1936 Summer Olympics are at pinyin, some at non-pinyin spellings. They're all unhyphenated, but that's because pinyin doesn't use hyphens, and Sports Reference drops hyphens even in non-pinyin spellings (a convention which they made up themselves, apparently; the contemporary news reports used hyphens for other athletes, though I can't find any for this guy specifically). The sole other English source I could find (olympic.org) hyphenates the given name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Operation London BridgeDeath of Queen Elizabeth II – The article is about the plans for the Queen's death, funeral, and the succession to the throne, rather than the codename "Operation London Bridge" per se. The proposed title better reflects this. I accept having an article about a future death could be confusing, so "Plans for the death of Queen Elizabeth II" may be more suitable. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)ChapatiChapathi – Chapathi is the proper transliteration as the 'th' in chapathi is not pronounced as a hard "T" like in "Tea" or "Tank" but rather a 'softer' 't' like in 'thin' or 'third'. Adding to this there are several published references with this proper spelling,not to mention numerous videos detailing proper pronunciation. Furthermore, the indian languages use the letter in their respective scripts denoting the softer 'th' sound to spell chapathi. Do not sign this. 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Fuji TelevisionFuji TV – Whenever someone refers to this network it is usually referred to as Fuji TV both in Japanese when the name is spelled out in romanji and outside the country in other languages. The same goes for the page for Nippon TV which is isn't Nippon Television. Also, it will make it easier to distinguish it from Fiji Television which many will often confuse it with when misspelled. The name change will also alleviate it. AquilaXIII (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Rozzi CraneRozzi – Rozzi, formally known as Rozzi Crane, is beginning 2018 with a new brand/image. Now she is Rozzi, an american singer-song writer. When looking at all other forms of information on her, Rozzi is referred to by this simple nomenclature every time - website, instagram, Facebook. For a more specific example, her old twitter states that she is no longer going by the handle "@rozzicrane," but now she is @thisisrozzi. Multiple publications that are about her upcoming album refer to her as Rozzi - Rolling Stone and LADYGUNN. When using searching the term "Rozzi" on search engines, all websites associated with her are in the top results. Nadinehanley (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Music of Southeastern EuropeBalkan music – This seems to be the commonly used name of this kind of music. Apart from the mention in the lede (which I just put there to get the lede aligned with the title}, the word "southeastern" is not even mentioned in the main text, while Balkan is mentioned repeatedly. T*U (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bhavana (Kannada actress)Bhavana Ramanna – First of all, the current "Kannada actress" is an improper dab. She has also acted in other language films, not only in Kannada. She is also not an actor who uses a mononym, she uses both Bhavana and Ramanna together. Since there's only little coverage on her and the South Indian media outlets often call celebrities with their first name alone, it's difficult to distinguish from search results. She is an actress, producer, politician and dancer. She is credited as Bhavana Ramanna in the poster of her production Niruttara. Her official (not verified though) Facebook page is also Bhavana Ramanna. She is also mentioned as Bhavana Ramanna in India's leading movie ticket selling site Bookmyshow.com, and in the official site of Indian National Congress, her political party. She is the chairperson of Bal Bhavan Society, an educational organisation, where her name is again credited BR. Clearly she prefers and is credited and known by the name Bhavana Ramanna. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mamita (disambiguation)Mamita – No indication that a redirect to a discography mentioning the August 2017 song which failed to chart significantly other than 27 in Argentina is the primary topic for the Spanish word "mummy". In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 16, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)The Wave: BristolThe Wave – The Wave: Bristol is not the common name of the subject and it is overprecise as The Wave has several developments underway in different geographical locations, not just Bristol Zephyr2014 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 15, 2018[edit]

  • (Discuss)Salisbury Catholic Parish SA → ? – The abbreviation SA will not be obvious to non-Australians, and an alternative is to move to a namespace that focuses the article on the notable heritage building. There are a number of possible names based on WP:CRITERIA: *RecognizabilitySalisbury Catholic Parish, or Old St Augustine's Catholic Church as the name people familiar with the building use to differentiate it from the newer building nearby. *NaturalnessSalisbury Catholic Parish, South Australia as suggested by Peterkingiron, or Old St Augustine's Catholic Church (Salisbury, South Australia) modeled after the other churches listed at St. Augustine Catholic Church. *PrecisionSalisbury Roman Catholic Parish, South Australia, or St Augustine's Catholic Church and Cemetery (Salisbury, South Australia) modeled after articles listed at St. Augustine Catholic Church and Cemetery and the listing in the heritage registry. *ConcisenessSalisbury Catholic Parish is enough because there is no existing article at that namespace, or St. Augustine's Catholic Church, Salisbury. *ConsistencySalisbury Roman Catholic Parish modeled after other article names such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide, or St Augustine's Catholic Church (Salisbury, South Australia) modeled after the other churches listed at St. Augustine Catholic Church. I prefer Old St Augustine's Catholic Church because I consider the building the notable topic in the article, this seems to be a name used by people familiar with the building, it is not too long, and I prefer to avoid disambiguators when possible. It could be listed at St. Augustine Catholic Church and Cemetery and St. Augustine Catholic Church to help people find the article about the historic building, and there could be a redirect from the existing namespace for people interested in the parish. – Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Plantation eraAntebellum era – article lede uses Antebellum, specific term for the Southern United States, as there were also plantation eras in Hawaii and Ireland. *Note, "plantation" seems to get more Google hits, but their software also autocorrects the search box to "Antebellum" Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Keith Creel (executive)Keith Creel – Confident this will now be the primary topic at this name. CEO of Canadian Pacific is a prominent position and he is frequently the subject of media reports [18]. Predecessor E. Hunter Harrison had average monthly 1,680 page views while in post,[19] against 128 for the baseball player [20] (and who knows how many of those were looking for the railway man): Noyster (talk), 13:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Elapsed listings[edit]

  • (Discuss)142,857142857 – This article is about the series of digits "142857", not just the number one hundred and forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty seven. For example, there's a section covering 1/7=0.142857142857142857... As such, it shouldn't be treated as just a number, with a comma separator per MOS:DIGITS. No one is going to confuse this with a year. Paul_012 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

  • (Discuss)Ying Wa CollegeAnglo-Chinese CollegeAnglo-Chinese College (now Ying Wa College) is one of the existing earliest articles in English Wikipedia that it was original referring to the College founded in 1818 and dissolved in 1873. Although Ying Wa College (a secondary school now in Hong Kong) claims its origin is Anglo-Chinese College, there is a definite historical break between the Anglo-Chinese College (dissolved on 1873) and Ying Wa College (reestablished on 1914). Most of the academic researches about the Anglo-Chinese College only refer to the institution before 1873. (e.g. Waiting for China: the Anglo-Chinese College in Malacca by Brian Harrison [24] and Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China by Christopher A. Daily [25], both published by HKU Press). Some historians have also challenged the historical connection between both. (as stated in Ying Wa Girls' School history [26], only available in Chinese.) Ux610283 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Papillon dogPapillon (dog breed) – This was moved back in September as part of a bulk RM of 27 different article titles on grounds of WP:NATURAL. However, when you propose 27 unrelated moves all at once, you don't really address whether on not the proposed titles actually fulfill NATURAL. NATURAL explicitly states it does not apply to "obscure or made-up names". "Papillon dog" is such an obscure name, Google Books Ngrams won't even graph it. Maybe bulk RMs of unrelated articles that don't discuss the relevance of the cited policy to each of the 27 different new titles being lumped together aren't such a good idea, perhaps? Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ karathomasbooks.wordpress.com

See also[edit]