Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

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

Closing instructions

"Wikipedia:RM" and "Wikipedia:RFPM" redirect here. For requested mergers, see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. For removals, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. For page history mergers, see Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. For requesting the page mover user right, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover.
Note: For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.
For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.
Click here to purge this page
Shortcuts

Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. (For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.) Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

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

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

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

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

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

Undiscussed moves

Shortcut

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

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

If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Requesting technical moves

Shortcut

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

  • To list a technical request: edit the Uncontroversial technical requests subsection and insert the following code filling in pages and reason: 
    {{subst:RMassist| current page title | new page title | reason = reason for move}}
    This will automatically insert a bullet and include your signature. Please do not edit the article's talk page.
  • If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~.
  • If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here. The fastest and easiest way is to click the "discuss" button at the request, save the talk page, and remove the entry on this page.

Technical requests

Uncontroversial technical requests

Contested technical requests

Requests to revert undiscussed moves

Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves

Shortcut

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

  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested. 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, such as to correct obvious typographical errors, see Requesting technical moves. The technical moves procedure can also be used for uncontroversial moves when the requested title is occupied by an existing article.

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 18 March 2020" and sign the post for you.

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

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

WikiProjects may subscribe to Article alerts to receive RM notifications. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Article alerts/Requested moves is transcluded to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. RMCD bot notifies many of the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article to be moved to invite project members to participate in the RM discussion. Requesters should feel free to notify any other Wikiproject or noticeboard that might be interested in the move request, as long as this notification is neutral.

Single page move on a different talk page

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

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

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

Requesting multiple page moves

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

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

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

See also: Template:Requested move/extended blank

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

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

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

Request all associated moves explicitly

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

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

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

Template usage examples and notes
Talk page tag Text that will be shown (and usage notes)
{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why}}
links talk edit
Requested move 18 March 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move|?|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 March 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move |new|reason=why|talk=yes}}
Requested move 18 March 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → New – why Example (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020‎ (UTC)

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



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

{{subst:Requested move |new1=x|current2=y|new2=z|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 March 2020

– why Example (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Requested move |new1=?|current2=y|new2=?|reason=why}}
Requested move 18 March 2020

– why Example (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When participating, please consider the following:

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

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

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

Relisting a requested move

Shortcut

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

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

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}} or {{Mdn}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

Notes

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

Current discussions

Shortcut
This section lists all requests filed or identified as potentially controversial which are currently under discussion.

This list is also available in a page-link-first format and in table format. 49 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

March 18, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Cathy L. Lanier → Cathy Lanier – I am seeing no pattern of real-world usage that particularly justifies the inclusion of the middle initial "L" in the title. Sources seem more likely to just say "Cathy Lanier", which already redirects here. BD2412 T 14:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ASAS J140748-3945.7 -- Pre-main sequence Star", SIMBAD, "Identifiers (12) [...] V* V1400 Cen"
  2. ^ "V1400 Cen", The International Variable Star Index
  3. ^ "Constraining the period of the ringed secondary companion to the young star J1407 with photographic plates", arXiv, "The 16 Myr old star 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 (V1400 Cen)..."
  4. ^ "ALMA and NACO observations towards the young exoring transit system J1407 (V1400 Cen)", arXiv, "...the young Sco-Cen star 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 (V1400 Cen, hereafter J1407)..."
– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Luther Monument (Washington, D.C.) → Statue of Martin Luther (Washington, D.C.) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." Evidence the D.C. work is more commonly known as the "Luther Monument"? --Another Believer (Talk) 05:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – General José Gervasio Artigas → Statue of José Gervasio Artigas (Washington, D.C.) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." --Another Believer (Talk) 04:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 17, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Jaguitas → Jagüitas – The diacritical mark is needed. The references consulted shows it in the name of the place. The original move was done incorrectly by me. Yamil Rivera (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Regional councils of Sweden → Regions of Sweden – “Regional council” as a translation of “region” seems to be made up on Wikipedia. I checked the websites of the regions, and out of the 21 regions, 9 had either no English website at all or only a machine translation, 2 still used the term “county council” (translation of the old “landsting”), and 5 used the term “region”. 3 regions (Norrbotten, Värmland and Västra Götaland) use “region” in their names, but still call themselves “county councils”. Another 2 regions (Västernorrland and Örebro) also used “region”, but since they are missing the possessive apostrophe I don’t think their translations can be relied upon. No region used “regional council” except Västra Götaland which used it as a translation of “regionfullmäktige”. This translation is also used by the Government Offices of Sweden. Based on this, I think we should use “region” and “regional council” as translations of “region” and “regionfullmäktige”, respectively. The Regions of Sweden page currently redirects to a section about a proposed merger of the current counties, I think it can be replaced by this article since someone who searches for “Regions of Sweden” is probably more likely to be looking for the current regions. 0x9fff00 (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Buzdar (disambiguation) → Buzdar – Buzdar is the name of a tribe, that in the modern context has been used as a surname by its members. The redirect Buzdar is currently targeted to one such member – Sardar Usman Buzdar. Though he appears to be quite prominent at the moment, he's not a clear primary topic with respect to usage (one third of the users who search for "Buzdar" then click through the hatnote to the disambiguation page [1]), and he's definitely not the primary topic with respect to long-term significance (that is much more likely to be the tribe). – Uanfala (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jeryn Hogarth → Jeri Hogarth – Per consensus at the 2016 AFD, and the status quo of the article even four years later, the comic book character is not notable, and the gender-swapped and kinda-renamed character from the Netflix show is the real focus of this article; the lead should therefore be rewritten and the comics stuff put into a special "Background" section, but of course the first step is to change the article title. However, I'm not entirely confident that the 2016 consensus is still valid, and this may just be a case of laziness in failing to update the article, so I'm opening a new RM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Deborah L. Birx → Deborah Birx – This should be changed from "Deborah L. Birx" to "Deborah Birx" per WP:CONCISE. Another editor has made the argument that it shouldn't be moved due to the fact that reliable sources refer to her with the middle initial. However, I can find just as many reliable sources that refer to her without the initial([2], [3], [4]) compared to with the initial ([5], [6], [7]). Also, some of these "reliable sources" that were used to revert the page move are not WP:INDEPENDENT. That is why I believe that WP:CONCISE takes precedent over WP:MIDDLE  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

March 16, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Hindi (disambiguation) → Hindi (language) – This is not a disambiguation page as normally defined—it does not list articles that might otherwise be called "Hindi"—but it is a useful article. I suggest therefore it is moved to Hindi (language), over the current redirect, and the article is then cleaned up and categories added. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Günther Steiner → Guenther Steiner – This page was recently moved by Marbe166 asserting that this is the correct spelling of his name but has offered no evidence to support this claim. Now it was pointed out in the discussion above that ue is equivivlant to ü however it appears that he doesn't spell it this way, check out his profile on the website of the sports team he is in charge of. Wikipedia should spell his name as he spells it, not how it should be spelt in correct German, we don't exist to "correct" how he chooses to spell his own name becuase all the eviedence suggests that he spells it as Guenther and not Günther Therefore it doesn't make sense for this page to exist at Günther Steiner. (pinging editors involved with this previously @Corvus tristis, 5225C, and Marbe166:)
    SSSB (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Académie française → Académie Française – I lowercased the "française" to match the article title (and the official name). Unfortunately, it was reverted, with the reason being, "This is the form found in standard English texts. Wikipedia does not use the official name." Therefore, I am requesting to uppercase the first letter of "française". Although the move seems technical, I think it is controversial. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

March 15, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Detatarization of Crimea → De-Tatarization of Crimea – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH, reflected in search results on Google Books (by about 215[11] to 83[12]), Google Scholar (12 to 1[13]), and Google News (1 to 0[14]). Hyphenated version of this unfamiliar term is clearer than detatarization, which looks like it might mean “application of detatar” or something. Allows for capitalizing the name of a nation, the (Crimean) Tatars, as current English does in virtually all terms and expressions derived from the proper names, especially the names of national groups which must be treated respectfully and equally. WP:CONSISTENT with other article titles, e.g., eight subcategories and twenty-three articles in Category:Racism that starts with “Anti-” and capitalize the name of a national group.  —Michael Z. 2020-03-15 22:41 z 22:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Republic of Ilirida → Ilirida – Nobody seems to be clear on what the end goal of this vague idea was -- Albanians in Macedonia needed a name for the collective areas they inhabited that did not involve "Macedonia", but it was not clear if they wanted simply more rights in Macedonia, a federation state with Ilirida and rump North (Northeast??) Macedonia, an independent republic, an independent parliamentary monarchy with Prince Leka as monarch, merger with Albania, or merger with Kosovo. Hence it would seem simple "Ilirida" would be the best designation for the topic. Calthinus (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

March 14, 2020

  • (Discuss) – Template:Alternative user → Template:Old account – “Alternative user” does not convey the purpose this template serves. Instead rename it to “Old account” or “Former account notice” or something similar because that is a more appropriate name. PorkchopGMX 19:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Monigo → Monigo concentration camp – Monigo is the name of the Treviso neighborhood in which the camp stood. Monigo itself is missing a page but naming the lager only after Monigo without adding "concentration camp" adds confusion. I'll probably add a Monigo separate page with material from the Italian version. Stormtrooper (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Spy-Fi (subgenre) → Spy-Fi – A disambiguation appears unnecessary here. The vast majority of sources refer to "Spy-Fi" as spy fiction + science fiction, such as The Incredible World of Spy-fi and The Science of James Bond as well as Spy Television. Spy-fi should simply be redirected there as well. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women → ? – Okay so basically there's no trophy, no host country or anything that indicates the existence of a competition called African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women. It's simply a qualifying tournament for the FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and that means the current title should be changed. For me the only suitable options are either African U-20 Women's World Cup Qualifying Tournament or FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup African Qualifying Tournament, despite both might break WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I couldn't think of other possible titles and I wouldn't mind if someone bring up another suitable title, but definitely I'd be against keeping the current title for the reason I mentioned above. Ben5218 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 22:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

March 13, 2020

  • (Discuss) – History of the world → History of humanity – I am afraid this could be evaluated again. WP:PRECISE: in order to further distinguish from History of the world, World history and History of Earth. This discussion has been held previously at Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_1 (2006), Talk:History_of_the_world/Archive_3 (2013). Earlier opposition to this proposal has argued that "world" was meant in a decisively anthropocentric sense (as in the recorded memory of the experience of Homo sapiens) by historians such as Walter Raleigh, and that "humanity" is a polysemy. Yet, the precise contrary could easily be argued. Using "world" in the the sense of pertaining to humanity may strike many a contemporary Wikipedia contributor as too bold in its assumption of an anthropocentric interpretation on part of the average reader. While arguments may be valid especially from a purely academic perspective, "History of humanity" could still be considered at least less bad (as in less ambiguous) and WP:LEAST astonishing than "History of the world", casually speaking. Hence it may be argued that the policy favouring traditional scholarly doctrine should perhaps after all give preference to WP:COMMONNAME in the service to the readers in this case? A possible alternative solution would be "History of humankind", but not sure that is really necessary. Please note that, as discussed priorly, a History of the world (disambiguation) would still be maintained to meet the academic term (along with the other possible meanings). PPEMES (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Isabela Moner → Isabela Merced – She changed her name five months ago, and reliable sources have used the new name since, as have her film and music credits, her Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. It's no longer too WP:RECENT and is clearly the name she wants to be known by professionally. She has not legally changed her name, but as her stage name is the clear WP:COMMONNAME (just like all celebrities ever) it should be the title of the article. 51.146.28.34 (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

March 12, 2020

  • (Discuss) – USA Track & Field Indoor Championships → ? – The article base for this competition is split between USA Track & Field Indoor Championships and USA Indoor Track and Field Championships following moves from User:Infinite mission last year and there hasn't been any significant discussion on this topic to decide what the common name is. The organising body USA Track & Field does not appear to have a standard name for the competition and has called it USATF Indoor Championships, USA Indoor Track and Field Championships and USA Indoor Track & Field Championships among other names without indicating any as a specific brand change. Therefore I would suggest we ignore official naming and look to broader sources for guidance. Quoted search engine results in order of frequency of term: *"USATF Indoor Championships" 124,000 *"USATF Indoor Track and Field Championships" 70,000 *"USATF Indoor Track & Field Championships" 39,000 *"USA Track and Field Indoor Championships" 33,000 *"US Indoor Track and Field Championships" 28,000 *"USA Indoor Track and Field Championships" 25,000 *"USA Indoor Track & Field Championships" 5000 *"USA Track & Field Indoor Championships" 4500 (current) *"US Indoor Track & field Championships" 4000 *"US Track and field Indoor Championships" 1400 There are many names in use and I'm not personally invested in any of them, but I do think the article base should share a name. Given the current name is clearly a minority term, I suggest a move to USATF Indoor Championships based on the above results. SFB 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Lusophony Games → Lusofonia Games – There was a recent move of numerous articles on the Lusophony Games to use Lusophone Games by User:Bruxism. I started to revert the move back to the long-standing Lusophony Games, but now realise this has been done across many pages and categories without any wider discussion, so I am loth to make a change that affects 100s of articles again without further discussion on the common name for the competition. Search engine results for Wikipedia's long-standing name for this competition ("Lusophony Games") [18] easily outnumber those for "Lusophone Games" [19], but the term "Lusofonia Games" actually has double the results of either [20]. The only English-speaking nation that takes part in this competition is India and looking at Indian news websites again reveals that Lusofonia Games is comfortably the preferred term (Times of India, Deccan Herald, Indian Express,The Hindu) I think this coverage should take precedence for our common name considerations, given that the majority of English-language coverage comes from India and it rarely receives coverage in the press of other English-speaking nations. SFB 19:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

March 11, 2020

  • (Discuss) – I Love Me → I Love Me (film) – Only other "I Love Me" with an article is a five-day-old song that is far too recent to be the primary topic. However, I feel it's still a far more likely primary topic than an Indian film that I can't find many reliable sources about via Google, and that peaked on Google Trends for a few months after its release in 2012 but has since dropped significantly in popularity and now mostly gains interest in Asia. The song can stay where it is for now, but I don't think the film should be at the basename. ｖａｐｏｒｇａｚｅ💬 18:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

Shortcut
The 7-day listing period has elapsed. Items below may be closed if there's a consensus, or if discussion has run its course and consensus could not be achieved.
  • (Discuss) – Ideal age → Prime years – The content of the article is laid out in the sense of an age spectrum rather than a specific number in temr sof age. The term "prime years" therefore aligns more closely with article content. 79.67.66.6 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Sri Bhagavan → Kalki Bhagwan – Subject is popularly known in the contemporary society as 'Kalki Bhagwan'. A simple google search for 'Kalki Bhagwan' will yield results and articles by prominent news and media sources confirming the same. Additional reasons and rationale mentioned in points A1 to A15 in this talk page. Ronyrockford (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Aruṇa → Aruna (Hinduism) – This transliteration from Sanskrit ought to have a title or a redirect that is accessible from a standard English keyboard. I don't think it's the primary topic—Aruna is a disambiguation page—so I'm suggesting "Hinduism" as a disambiguator, but am open to any better suggestions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Telecommuting → Work from home – "Telecommuting" has quickly become a dated term. Google search trends for the last five years are pretty clear that "telecommuting" is not the common name for what's being described here, varying forms of the word "telecommuting" lose out in large to massive margins to "work from home" and even "remote work." The search engine also shows ~4.9 million hits for "telecommuting" vs. ~165 million for "work from home." For reliable sources, Google News shows ~104,000 results for telecommuting vs. ~33.3 million for "work from home." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Tiridates III of Armenia → Tiridates IV of Armenia – There was seemingly a Tiridates III who ruled in 287-293 (as shown in the image section of the Iranica article [23]). Also, here is what James Russell states in his work "Zoroastrianism in Armenia, p. 170": "In his inscription at Paikuli, Narseh refers to one Trdat, king of Armenia. Since the inscription was made in 29 3-4, it cannot refer to a Tiridates who was not yet king. Toumanoff therefore suggests that Xosrov was killed by Tiridates III, his brother, the Anak of the legend, who was made king of Armenia by the Sasanians; Xosrov's son, Tiridates IV, escaped to Rome and returned to take the throne in 298." There are lot of other sources who use the regnal number IV for this "Tiridates", such as the The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism and so on.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – It is evident that Meghan Markle remains her WP:COMMONNAME. #She has a notable career in her own right as Meghan Markle. #Reliable sources have continued to widely refer to her as Meghan Markle (often she and her husband are referred to in this way: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle[24]). #She and her husband have clearly indicated an intention to step back from being "senior" royals and also to markedly reduce their use of titles and styles for both themselves and their son. #The move to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" was contentious in the first place and based on an assumption that reliable sources would eventually start referring to her as such; however few sources refer to her using the current title "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex". #Wallis Simpson, who married a king and not someone just 6th in line, and who had no notable career in her own right as "Wallis Simpson", is still titled Wallis Simpson and not Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. #And finally, some editors would argue that the current title of the article that treats her as an appendage to her husband, is quite anti-modern and reflects outdated values, particularly for someone with their own career and who is commonly known under her original name in reliable sources. (Note, per RM guidelines RMs are not expected to be "neutral" but to make a case for moving the article). --Tataral (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – KLEA-FM (New Mexico) → ? – Recent page moves — this was previously at simply KLEA-FM — have added a parentheses disambiguator to presumably remove any ambiguity with the current KLEA (FM) — but the "new" KLEA is also located in New Mexico, so that alone might not be the best disambiguator. Not entirely sure what the correct one should be, but KLEA (defunct), the first title this article was moved to, isn't correct either; earlier RMs at other articles have deprecated "defunct" as a disambiguator, the official call sign was KLEA-FM with the "-FM" suffix (the naming conventions for North American broadcast stations have long said that article titles reflect the official call sign, but have no set standard for defunct stations' disambiguators), and there is an equally-defunct KLEA (AM). The two most logical options I can think of are KLEA-FM (Lovington, New Mexico) (the current KLEA (FM) is licensed to serve Hobbs instead) or KLEA-FM (1965–2017) (it never had any other call sign, limiting the confusion that may or may not otherwise exist with that disambiguator), but there might be other paths as well. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Crusader states → Outremer – There has been a long debate on scope and definition of the Crusades at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades. Consensus is that that article focusses on the Levantine crusades, rather than attempting to cover the entire scope of the subject, another article is created for the wider context but also this article focuses on the Outremer e.g. Levant rather than be broad collection of unrelated locations. These could be included in any new broader article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

Shortcut
Elapsed listings fall into the backlog after 24 hours. Consider relisting 8-day-old discussions with minimal participation.
  • (Discuss) – James Cardinal Gibbons Memorial Statue → Statue of James Gibbons – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." --Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Pushkin Statue (Riga) → Statue of Alexander Pushkin (Riga) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." --Another Believer (Talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Don Quixote (Teno) → Statue of Don Quixote (Washington, D.C.) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." --Another Believer (Talk) 13:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Valerie Porter, Ian Lauder Mason (2002). Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types, and Varieties (fifth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 085199430X, page 318.
  2. ^ Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944, page 772.
  3. ^ Barbara Rischkowsky, D. Pilling (eds.) (2007). List of breeds documented in the Global Databank for Animal Genetic Resources, annex to The State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 9789251057629, page 137. Accessed January 2017.
  4. ^ Home: Welcome to the Website of the British Milksheep Society. The British Milksheep Society. Accessed February 2020.
  5. ^ Sheep Breeds. National Sheep Association. Accessed February 2020.
  6. ^ Breed Purpose. Lawrence Alderson. Accessed February 2020.
  7. ^ UK National Inventory of Farm Animal Genetic Resources: Ovines. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Accessed February 2020.

Since that short list includes – among other solid sources – the person who created it (#6), the society that registers it (#4), the National Sheep Association of its country of origin (#5) and the government department responsible for it (#7), I had thought this would be entirely uncontentious. However, the move was reverted, so now starting this discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 05:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • (Discuss) – Copycat suicide → Suicide contagion – Suicide contagion is somewhat broader, since a suicide can be regarded as a copycat one only if the why and how of it is similar or identical to another suicide, however if a suicide is triggered by another, then the term suicide contagion can be applied, in spite of the fact that the why or how of the former may be dissimilar to the latter. RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse → Moritz von Hessen – The current article title gives the impression that his title is Landgrave of Hesse. In fact, like all German nobility, the Landgravate was abolished a century ago. His surname is "Prinz und Landgraf von Hessen", just like it is for everyone in his family, but this is not a title and it shouldn't be treated as such or translated into English. It's just a last name. German Wikipedia simply calls him "Moritz von Hessen", and it makes sense to follow their lead. Smurrayinchester 10:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Trials of Mana → Seiken Densetsu 3 – This article about the 1995 Famicom game, not its 2019 rerelease, or its upcoming remake, so it should have never been moved to Trials of Mana. Looking at the sourcing used in this very article, they all continue to use the name Seiken Densetsu 3 when writing about the original release, the upcoming remake, and the collection that was released. This is after all how English sourcing has referred to it for over 20 years. More recent reliable sources continue referring to the game by this name, and use Trials of Mana to refer exclusively to the rerelease/upcoming remake. Examples of this include: Nintendo Life, Gematsu, Destructoid. From this, I think it is safe to say that the WP:COMMONNAME is still Seiken Densetsu 3. Alt (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Behavioral operations research → Behavioral operations – Propose to rename the article Behavioral Operations, and refer to Behavioral Operations Research and Behavioral Operations Management only as alterantive names in the first introduction sentence. Whilst Operations Research and Operations Managment are indeed two different fields with very high overlap, the differences with respect to behavioral research are completely blurred. For instance, is behavioural research on supply chains, the knapsack problem, the newsvendor problem, human factor engineering or the bullwhip effect Behavioral Operations Research or Behavioral Operations Management? It probably depends whether one asks an OR or OM researcher; i.e. the naming is a matter of personal preferences. Therefore Behavioral Operations has been established as neutral term, for instance in the perhaps most influential theory paper on this topic by Gino & Pisano (2008),[1] as well as a recent literature review by by Dohan et al. (2020).[2] Both articles are published in Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, the third best journal in the field (Management Science and Operations Research do not publish such kind of reviews).

References

  1. ^ Gino, F.; Pisano, G. (2008). "Toward a theory of behavioral operations". Manufacturing & Service Operations Management. 10 (4): 676–691. doi:10.1287/msom.1070.0205.
  2. ^ Donohue, K.; Özer, Ö; Zheng, Y. (2020). "Behavioral operations: Past, present, and future". Manufacturing & Service Operations Management. 22 (1): 191–202. doi:10.1287/msom.2019.0828.
TPape (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Alp → Alp (disambiguation) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to allow for making Alp a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Alps. The use of "alp" as a reference to a single alp in the Alps is far more common than any other use listed on the dab page, as demonstrated by the page view stats. Also, per WP:ASTONISH. People searching with "alp" are most likely looking for the Alps article. I just did exactly that search (for "alp") and was astonished to be taken to a dab page full of obscure uses of the term. A hatnote at Alps sending the occasional searcher for one of the obscure uses back to the dab page will be quite adequate for handling those rare cases. Finally, anyone linking to alp in article text almost certainly intends the Alps connotation, so it should redirect accordingly. See Also recent related RM here: Talk:Alp_(folklore)#Requested_move_22_October_2019 В²C ☎ 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Channel 33 (Israel) → Channel 33 (Israeli TV channel) – Apparently, this needs a pointless RM. WP:NCBC is very clear on how article titles should be handled. # Common name # Disambiguation – Articles about channels should use (radio channel) or (TV channel). # The addition of the country or other clarifying adjective can be used to further disambiguate. This means that Channel 33 (Israel) does not follow the guideline. As it uses the country name and not the media type and not the country adjective. Instead of fighting this issue over and over, if one disagrees with how the guideline is written, they should seek consensus to change it, and not try and force WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jenifer Wheildon Brown → Jenifer Haselgrove – Return to Jenifer Haselgrove. While she was born Jenifer Wheildon Brown, she is best known as Haselgrove and indeed her most notable work is known as Haselgrove's equations. The birth name now it has come to light should be included but per WP:Commonname the article title should be that by which she is mostly widely recognised. Nthep (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Hope of Glory → The Hope of Glory: Reflections on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross – This is the correct name of the book, as per the first line of the article. That name already redirects to this page. The short title can redirect to this for now, but Goodreads lists 129 books with "The Hope of Glory" as an element of the title, including multiple books denoted by that name alone. The Hope of Glory is also a theological concept, so it is likely that a disambiguation page would eventually be required. This new book is just one in a long list of works with the title, some notable, others not. It is WP:TOSOON to assert that this book is so notable it deserves the primary use of the term. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Almacenes Tía → Tía – I have no idea why this is called "Almacenes Tía". In Spanish, "almacenes" just means "stores", and does not seem to form part of either the official name or common name of this company. In Spanish Wikipedia, it's there as a disambiguating phrase ("es:tía" means "aunt"), but French Wikipédia also calls it this, and redirects fr:tía to it. Tía already redirects to it, so per WP:CONCISE I think we should move it over. 85.238.91.68 (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) → Statue of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln Memorial) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "For portrait sculptures of individuals in public places the forms "Statue of Fred Foo" "Equestrian statue of Fred Foo" or "Bust of Fred Foo" is recommended, unless a form such as "Fred Foo Memorial" or "Monument to Fred Foo" is the WP:COMMONNAME. If further disambiguation is needed, because there is more than one sculpture of the same person with an article, then disambiguation by location rather than the sculptor is usually better." Since there are other statues of Lincoln in Washington, D.C., we must use a more specific location. This move would make the page more consistent with entries in Category:Statues of Abraham Lincoln. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – ETA (separatist group) → Euskadi Ta Askatasuna – Rationale: * The article should be moved to provide natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, WP:ACRONYMTITLE: Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation [...]. One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation.) * Background: ETA is the abbreviation for Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. The abbreviation is overwhelmingly more used in routine press coverage both in English and Spanish, but the full name is still used in the press. In recent years, I've seen the full name increasingly present in the press, since now the press tends to do in-depth articles rather than routine coverage. * Search test: Note that a search test is futile, since the high ambiguity of the abbreviation ETA. * Note that both Spanish and Basque Wikipedias use the full name (eu, es). These Wikipedias have different policies though, so I'm just noting this as context. MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Jordanian annexation of the West Bank → Jordanian occupation of the West Bank – This is referred to as an annexation while the Israeli annexation of the Golan is referred to as an “occupation”. Both offer full citizenship, both faced limited recognition internationally (both even were recognized by one member of the UN Security Council), and both faced push back against sovereignty from parts of their respective populations (however, both were not conquered from a previous sovereign, as the West Bank had no sovereign while Golan did; if this is relevant though, then the current Israeli occupation of east Jerusalem ought to be characterized as an annexation (wouldn’t apply to the rest of the West Bank given Israel’s lack of claim at this moment to the area). I propose the name of this article be changed to “occupation” or the Israeli occupation of the Golan henceforth be referred to as an “annexation” given the similarities between the situations. This would harmonize terminology, as behooves any encyclopedia. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Communist rebellion in the Philippines → CPP–NPA–NDF conflict – This article should not be named "Communist rebellion in the Philippines," since that sidelines some significant movements, notably the PKP-1930, the CPLA, and the ABB-RPA. It also effectively sidelines Marxist-Leninist history in favor of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist history. This is why this insurgency is so poorly understood by the public. My proposal is that this article be renamed "CPP-NPA-NDF Rebellion," and that "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" be made a redirect to "Communism in the Philippines," which covers all the movements, from the Unión Obrera Democrática right on up to the present. CPP, NPA, and NDF should remain their own articles although they are linked, because there are key differences in the strucutre and funciton of each organization. Additionally: the WP:NPOV title for this is "conflict", not "rebellion" or "insurrecton." Unless what we want is a review of the conflict from a tactical/strategic standpoint, but that does not seem to be the intent of this article. Also, note that CPP-NPA-NDF is accepted and used Philippine Government Security Agencies such as the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, as demonstrated on their website at https://peace.gov.ph/timeline/peace-process-cpp-npa-ndf/ . Chieharumachi (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Boney M. → Boney M – Both the proposed name (i.e. no full stop) and the current name (i.e. with full stop) are used by news articles. Books may have used either one as well, but may more likely recently omit full stop. (eBook edition of band member's autobiography uses full stop.) Even if the full stop is part of the band's official name, seems that the one without the full stop is more commonly used. Somehow, Google wouldn't exclude the name with the full stop in search results for some technical reason. Checking sources from this and last year, Billboard uses full stop. PhilStar omits full stop. (More sources listed below.) I think omitting the full stop is more beneficial for most readers, including those preferring to not using it for manual searches. Also, per WP:DIVIDEDUSE, if I'm proven wrong, and if both the proposed and current names are commonly used, then the proposed name is less surprising than the current one because, I think, many people don't expect the full stop to be there. Moreover, per WP:CRITERIA, it's consistent with articles like Melody (Japanese singer), Janet (album), and Gangsta (manga). If the article were to be moved, then other articles using the band's name should be moved as well. George Ho (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Mohammed V Stadium → Stade Mohammed V – The stadium is more commonly known with its French name, Stade Mohammed V, rather than its English name, Mohammed V Stadium, as it can seen in these Google search results. The results for the name in French was more than 93,500 while the results for the English name is slightly more than 43,000. It was also the original name of the stadium before it was moved to Mohammed V Athletic Complex back in October 2019. Ben5218 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Room (2003 film) → The Room – This film has much more long-term significance than the other topics with this name, being an infamous cult classic that is still often shown in cinemas around the world today, and also spawned an unofficial video game adaptation as well as a book and film about its creation, plus Google mostly brings up results related to this film. However, when the all-time view counts are compared, this film only comes in fifth, though this may be due to this article being moved to its current title literally two weeks ago (not too sure how that gadget works in regard to recently moved articles), especially since the view counts for the past twenty days tell a different story. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Dhammakaya Movement → Dhammakaya tradition – Per reasons provided by Wikiman above: "First, the article and sources define it as a Thai Buddhist tradition, so it would be perfectly accurate to call it such and would be a superior way to convey information to readers quicker. Second, it is noted by Newell[33] on pages 15–16 that the term Dhammakaya Movement is sometimes used interchangeably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya by various scholars, which can be very confusing, especially if a reader was to do further reading and read stuff about the Dhammakaya Movement when the scholar or source was really just talking about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically. Since this page is clearly about the wider tradition that began at Wat Paknam that just happens to include Wat Phra Dhammakaya as well as several other temples, it would be beneficial if we titled the article in a way that makes the distinction clear. Dhammakaya tradition would be good way to do this, and it would still be very much accurate, since it is a Buddhist tradition." [Reference added, changed style fonts]-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Rafeiro do Alentejo → ? – Per WP:USEENGLISH we should not have this at the Portuguese name when formal English ones are available and well-attested. However, in this case, we have a tough choice. While Alentejo Mastiff is used by one American kennel club, the international one, Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), uses the "Portuglish" Rafeiro of Alentejo, which isn't really ideal, though FCI is a more reliable/influential/reputable source than a single national registry with no connection to the native country of the breed nor with any efforts at the breed's establishment (possibly important is that the Portuguese Kennel/Cynological Club, who developed the breed standard, is an FCI national affiliate). However, rafeiro is technically a misnomer, meaning 'mongrel' or 'mutt', and refers to the original foundation stock being landrace animals with no pedigree history. Another American registry provisionally recognizes the breed under its original Portuguese name, Rafeiro do Alentejo; but provisional recognition is basically meaningless, and breed names often change by the time they are fully accepted (if ever; given the low breeding numbers of this variety, never is actually fairly likely). At first, I leaned toward Alentejo Mastiff as more precise in a sense, as well as a bit more concise, but in the end I lean more toward FCI as simply a more important source of names, with international standardization, and because the misnomer isn't transparent in English and only matters to people fluent in Portuguese. This is obscure enough a topic that I don't think a typical WP:COMMONNAME analysis can reliably be done; there will be a lot of statistical skew due to online dog forums and so forth being pro- or anti- particular kennel clubs, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – A-Channel (Craig Media) → A-Channel (TV network) – The current title is uncommon disambiguation not supported by WP:NCBC. According to the article, The A-Channel is a television system. According to television system in Canada, a television system is a group of television stations which share common ownership, branding and programming, but which for some reason does not satisfy the criteria necessary for it to be classified as a television network under Canadian law. As the term "television system" has no legal definition, and as most audiences and broadcasters usually refer to groups of stations with common branding and programming as "networks" regardless of their structure, the distinction between the two entities is often not entirely clear; indeed, the term is rarely discussed outside the Canadian broadcasting enthusiast community. Seeing as how the article says that the definition of "television system" is rarely discussed outside the Canadian broadcasting enthusiast community, that seems like using "television system" as disambiguation would be MOS:JARGON and per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY should be avoided. So per WP:NCBC "(TV network)" is the better option. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – The Family Channel (American TV network) → ? – also The Family Channel (United States). These two networks/channels called "The Family Channel" are for two different networks, by two different entities that operated in the United States in different time periods. However, while I realize this is not a standard proposal, as one is an article and the other is a redirect, almost all the google search results I get when searching for "The Family Channel" are for the 1980s-1990s channel. Even when viewing the Page views one can see that the page History of Freeform (TV channel) gets much more page views. While by itself not enough, looking at how high the page views are for The Family Channel, the dab page, which even it has a higher monthly view count than this page (and the dab page doesn't even link to the history page), suggests that readers are not landing on the page they are looking for. This scenario while not standard, is causing harm that a hatnote cannot solve. Not only can readers be confused (see WP:ASTONISH), even editors are incorrectly linking articles to the wrong "The Family Channel" - Solid Gold (TV series) links here instead of to the original network, and Category:The Family Channel original programming is meant for the original network as well. All this points to me that the title "The Family Channel (American TV network)" and it's derivatives (including "The Family Channel (United States)") are ambiguous (see WP:INCDAB) and should be further disambiguated to differentiate between the two, and the title redirected to the dab page. This will allow easier finding for readers, and allow bot warnings for editors linking to the incorrect page. Regarding the proposed names, I really have no clue what the optimal names should be as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) does not give an example for such situations. Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss) – Catholic Diocese of Helsinki → ? – This move (and the broader, associated moves), are to deal with a small, but longstanding problem in the Catholic diocese pages. Ever since Roman Catholic Church the move has been to depreciate the naming convention from Roman Catholic to Catholic. However, most of the diocese pages remain as Roman Catholic diocese of X to reflect their identity as latin rite parishes. Thus the name has a functional, (and quite useful purpose). This has been extended to other rites, ie, Byzantine Catholic, and allows for disambiguation, ie, two dioceses that occupy the same physical area, (or city), but differ in their rites. Therefore, I propose this solution. For all Latin rite dioceses that are currently not named Roman Catholic diocese of X per the naming convention, that they will be changed back to Roman Catholic diocese of X. I am happy to do all the moves manually with the help of administrators to deal with the page histories, and with the redirects, etc. When we did this before Anthony Applewhite helped me do this. This would resolve the haphazard approach of previous requested moves that have resulted in some pages being Catholic diocese of X, while 95 percent of the 3k diocese articles are Roman Catholic diocese of X. Unlike some of the other changes which were cosmetic, the naming convention Roman Catholic conveys additional meaning that is lost from the change to Catholic diocese of X. This discussion has long been percolating over individual move discussions, so I think it's finally time to have this discussion here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

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


See also

The current Wikipedia time is:
15:08, Wednesday, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
To update time purge the cache!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=945851710"