Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Jump to navigation Jump to 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 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

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

Undiscussed moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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

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

Replace NewName with the requested new name of the page (or with a question mark, if you want more than one possible new name to be considered). The template will automatically create the heading "Requested move 03 August 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.}}

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 03 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 23:45, 03 August 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 03 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 23:45, 03 August 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 03 August 2020

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 23:45, 03 August 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 03 August 2020

– why Example (talk) 23:45, 03 August 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 03 August 2020

– why Example (talk) 23:45, 03 August 2020 (UTC)

Commenting on a requested move

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

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

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. 45 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

August 3, 2020

  • (Discuss)N26 (bank)N26 – this international bank is better recognised than other local subjects. RZuo (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)--RZuo (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Suicide of Sinedu TadesseThe Murder of Trang Phuong Ho – The murder of Ho is the central and noteworthy element of this event, not the suicide of Tadesse. Had Tadesse murdered Ho in the Harvard dormitory and then not committed suicide, it would still be a newsworthy event and hold a place on Wikipedia. Had Tadesse not murdered Ho and only committed suicide, it would not be. The murder is the defining core of the events laid out on this page. While that alone is sufficient reason that the popular wikipedia naming convention of "The Murder of" is much more suitable here, there is also the societal more of memorializing the victim with at least as much emphasis as the perpetrator in circumstances like this, especially when there is no imbalance of fame/notoriety between murderer and victim and the murderer is known only for the murder. The current title, focused solely on the suicide of the murderer, is ill-suited for the content and at odds with both logic and social/moral values. Nepats19113 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant proposalJervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant – Moved without discussion to the current less concise name. Both names are accurate and unambiguous, but there is no need to specify in the title that the proposed plant was not built, any more than we need to specify there that it was in Australia or was to be an SGHWR, etc.. Such information belongs instead in the article lead, and in the categories in which it is listed. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Qatar Open (tennis)ATP Qatar OpenWP:INCDAB, both of these tournaments are tennis tournaments, but they're held at different times, are on different tours and have different sponsors. Qatar Tennis (the organiser of both events), the ATP and the WTA uses the sponsorship to differentiate between the 2 but most reliable sources outside of Qatar prefer to differentiate by the tour they're on, so that's my top preference here. I'd also support disambiguating by sponsorship instead (Qatar ExxonMobil Open / Qatar Total Open) as that's better than the current set of titles. IffyChat -- 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Azad KashmirAzad Jammu and Kashmir – Naming it only Kashmir is misleading since most of the land encompassed in it is technically considered a part of Jammu rather than Kashmir valley, as well as the people being ethno-linguistically Punjabi and the governments of both India and Pakistan referring to it as Jammu and Kashmir. Foxhound03 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Application programming interfaceAPI – This strikes me as a case where the more commonly recognizable name for the subject is its acronym. The relevant naming convention here is WP:NCACRO, which states: Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. It also states: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. This is the case with APIs. Many of the sources cited within this article introduce APIs with the acronym first before spelling it out, e.g. [1][2][3]. See also Google Ngrams. API currently redirects here, so spelling it out is not needed for disambiguation either. I argue that the acronym "API" would be the title most recognizable for the subject, for both lay readers and experts. Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2, 2020

  • (Discuss)2020 VCDL Lobby Day2020 Virginia Lobby Day – Virginia Lobby Day is used by many organizations and is not controlled by any one group. It is not a day specifically for gun control or its opponents. There are Lobby Day activities every year in Virginia--including 2020--for organizations as diverse as the NAACP[1], Virginia Nurses[2], and environmental groups[3]. George Bounacos (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Locked Up (TV series)Vis a vis (TV series) – Article was moved without discussion in May 2019 from its original Spanish title to its "English-language title" by PC78, but I question whether it should have been when the article's own title card is "Vis a vis", and the four season articles are still at Vis a Vis (season 1) (shouldn't this be Vis a vis (season 1)?...), etc. As per WP:CONSISTENCY, either everything should be at "Vis a vis", or everything should be at "Locked Up"... So, should this article be moved back to its original Spanish title Vis a vis (TV series)? Or should the season articles all be moved to "Locked Up"?... Let's discuss, and come to a consensus. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Biuro SzyfrówPolish Cipher Bureau – It's the English Wikipedia, use English terms when possible. Proposed new title lets the user see what the article is about when they access it or see it in a list. An earlier informal discussion in 2006 ended in a 2-2 tie, but one editor argued that "We typically use the name of organisations in their own language: Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, B-Dienst, Bundesnachrichtendienst etc...", but two of those three articles have seen been renamed to English, so that argument doesn't appear to apply anymore. I suppose things have changed since 2006, which was a long time ago. This Google Ngram seems odd since use of either term seems to start only in 1970. I suppose nobody wrote about the organization in English til the Ultra info started to come out. Anyway, if the Ngram is accurate, it shows "Polish Cipher Bureau" usually ahead of "Biuro Szyfrów" and "Biuro Szyfrow" combined, by a bit. And that's not considering how many of the generic "Cipher Bureau" references are to the Polish Cipher Bureau -- surely some, and maybe a lot. (We could rename the article to just "Cipher Bureau" since there's no article by that name. However, that's silly; the single additional word "Polish" places the entity in much better context when encountered here or in a list, and is thus a service to the reader. Template {{EnigmaSeries}} names the link to this article this way, rather than the head-scratcher "Cipher Bureau". "Cipher Bureau (Poland)" would be OK too. Count me out of supporting any rename to just "Cipher Bureau".) Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Utqiagvik, AlaskaUtqiaġvik – Utqiagvik is a misspelling, and is only used in certain publications due to a lack of the character 'ġ,' legally and officially, the city's name in English and in Iñupiatun is Utqiaġvik WZibell (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

August 1, 2020

July 31, 2020

  • (Discuss)See You When I Am FamousSee You When I Am Famous!!!!!!!!!!!! – It's possible that this may have gone through as an uncontroversial and uncontested move, but because of the unusual case with the punctuation I thought it best to have a discussion. The article's overall notability is weak, but what reliable sources exist, all list this album with the 12 exclamation marks at the end of its title. These include the Billboard chart placing [11], the review in The Post (which probably isn't acceptable, as it's a student newspaper) [12], and articles in Uproxx [13], HotNewHipHop [14] and Complex [15]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Li DenghuiLi Denghui (educator)Lee Teng-hui exceeds the importance of the educator by so much that I feel like the latter is not the primary topic of "Li Denghui", even if it is the "wrong" romanization for the Taiwanese president. If you google "Li Denghui" prior to 2020 (to avoid recentism bias due to Lee's death which would skew the results even more), the majority of the results are not for the educator. I am undecided whether a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Lee Teng-hui or disambiguation is better here. King of ♥ 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Arturo Reyes → ? – There is a respected Spanish writer from Malaga whose name is Arturo Reyes. Perhaps a disambiguation page has to be created. I have the article for this writer ready but I do not know how to create a disambiguation page and perform the move. Nikyvoyage (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

July 30, 2020

  • (Discuss)Concord MusicConcord Music Group – Concord Music Group is the entity the combines with Bicycle Music to become Concord Bicycle Music, which became Concord Music, which became Concord (entertainment company). The only entries that are needed are [Music Company], Concord Music Group and [[16]]. Therefore the page currently names Concord Music should be renamed Concord Music Group and the current redirect may be erased. MozartMania (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Typographical errorTypo – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the common name is typo (a shortened version), not "typographical error" a clunky form which is rarely used. Typo is also rising in popularity as the preferred term according to this [17] Google Ngram. I-82-I | TALK 23:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bloody Sunday (1920)Croke Park massacre – It seems to me that in the 21st century "Bloody Sunday" in reference to Ireland usually means Bloody Sunday (1972). I'm not certain that modern sources consistently lean toward "Croke Park massacre" in particular, but I doubt they prefer "Blood Sunday" any longer, or have for several decades. So, I'm open to whatever title seems best, I just don't think it's Bloody Sunday (1920). At a bare minimum, the lead should have boldfaced alternative names including the one proposed here and whatever else is found in multiple sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

July 29, 2020

  • (Discuss)Hélène PrévostYvonne Prévost – Bringing this move to WP:RM because the move was contested by User:Fyunck(click). The correct name for this individual is Yvonne Prevost, but since the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability before truth, let me address that first, since the quality of the source that this change is based off of was questioned. Olympedia is not a Wiki, it is a research database maintained by Bill Mallon, a 2001 recipient of the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Order in Silver, and about two dozen others. The database used to provide data for the now-defunct Olympics portion of Sports Reference.com, which was listed as one of TIME Magazine’s best websites of 2010. The database itself was profiled for its quality in 2009 (see: Bulletin of the International Council for Sport Science and Physical Education, No. 57, September 2009, p. 8-9. (ISSN 1728-5909) Summer of ’64 and the Olympic Database by Bill Mallon, Arild Gjerde and Jeroen Heijmans supported by the OlyMADMen (Magne Teigen, David Foster, Hilary Evans, Taavi Kalju, Morten Aarlia Torp, Jørn Jensen, Christian Tugnoli, Martin Kellner)). Google searching “Olympedia public” (without quotations) uncovers numerous reliable sources reporting on and praising the release of Olympedia to the public for its comprehensiveness and accuracy. Finally, the data at Olympedia will eventually be the official IOC data, so I believe WP:V is satisfied in this case. With verifiability out of the way, the next question is truth, since even reliable sources can be mistaken and can disagree. Many sources list her as Hélène Prévost, but it is important to keep in mind that journalists of the day often did not record the full names of athletes, even of an Olympic caliber, and particularly of women, who were often referred to as “Mrs. Husband’s Name”. If an error crept in, therefore, it was much easier to reproduce than in a contemporary setting where athlete’s full names are repeated thousands and thousands of times and mistakes are usually drowned out. French newspapers about her marriage to diplomat Auguste Boppe confirm that her name was Yvonne, not Hélène. How Hélène came to be more broadly accepted, I do not know, but the fact there was otherwise no biographical information (dates of birth and death, significant life details outside of competition results) available in sources we would consider reliable (such as the ITF) suggest strongly that we are not dealing with a situation of “was it Hélène or Yvonne who took part?”, but one where Hélène does not exist, or at least was not involved in tennis. Yvonne, on the other hand, has birth, death, and marriage certificates, as well as an obituary in Le Figaro. Now that there is a reliable source that makes this claim, and we can verify it, we should go for the more accurate claim rather than the more popular one (which can be mentioned in a footnote) when choosing between conflicting sets of information. Canadian Paul 04:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)History of the board game MonopolyHistory of Monopoly (game) – The parent article is Monopoly (game), so as a "child article", the nomenclature should reflect that of the parent. Even putting this aside, the article covers more than solely the board game proper, as it also goes into detail about other derivative properties with the Monopoly name, such as slot machines and a game show. This point was also addressed in the FAR by at least one other editor. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ultrasonography of chronic venous insufficiency of the legsVenous ultrasound of the legs – This article was created in 2013 and has received approximately 750 edits, including guide of copy editing review and a good article promotion. It was moved boldly and in good faith after this by Mikael Häggström in 2018 for the rationale that it refers only to venous insufficiency. I would like to request this article moves back to the title Venous ultrasound of the legs for this reason: # This is what the article is about # Venous ultrasound of the legs is also used for other conditions, including deep venous thrombosis # There is no need for another set of "venous ultrasound of the leg for X" articles ("Venous ultrasound of the leg for deep venous thrombosis" etc.) # When reading the article, the general topic of leg ultrasound is clearly the focus # The common name for the procedure is leg ultrasound / venous ultrasound of the leg, even if done for the purpose of CVI, not the current overly specific title. Ping to Iztwoz, DocElisa, Chris Capoccia who have contributed significantly to the article. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Worcester (disambiguation)Worcester – There is no clear primary topic. We have two ways we assess primary topics: * What are readers searching for: "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." In this case, the English city does not come close to receiving an overwhelming majority of page views, nor is it even the top viewed city at that name. Worcester, Massachusetts receives on average Worcester close to double the page views, and has been going back years (as far back as I was able with the page view tool). That is before you even include the other topics with that name, like Worcester, South Africa -- when we do that, we're looking at the subject getting something like 25 percent of page views where we usually demand 85-100. So it is clear that in terms of what readers are looking for it is not the primary topic. If page views indicate that the only potential primary is actually a different topic, there is not much of a case. *The second is longterm significance. I actually do think the English city is potentially the most notable of pages at this topic by at least a bit of a margin. It is certainly the oldest, and the namesake of the others (although we don't base primary topic decisions on those factors alone). But is that so overwhelming to justify ignoring that huge disparity between what readers clearly find the most significant and what editors do? The metrics we generally use don't support it, and a primary topic should be overwhelmingly clear. A search in Google books, which I know is a common way we look at long term notability in these discussions, brings up mixed results for different topics. The Massachusetts city has about twice as many article space articles linking to it. The Massachusetts city and the South African city both have a larger population, as another example. I don't think a primary topic necessarily has to have the highest population, although it certainly sets the bar higher if it does not(and it is tough to find examples of it). Again, we aren't trying simply to prove that the English city is the most notable, but by an overwhelmingly large margin to the point where we can assume readers in the long term would consider it more significant even though they don't right now. The English city wasn't the intended target for readers over the past 10 years, and there is no indication it would be for the next 10, or 20 or 50. There are rare cases where pages that do not get an overwhelming majority of page views can be considered the primary topic, and fewer, rarer cases where it can be when another page is actually getting a clear majority of page views (I can't think of any immediately, but they probably do exist). But in those cases the long term notability disparity must be so, overwhelmingly huge to justify that (like planet name vs. a pop song), and we'd need actual tangible proof of that beyond gut feelings. I know discussions about cities can get needlessly heated and sometimes nationalistic (the last move discussion six years ago was derailed by canvassing), so I'd just ask users to remember that disambiguation and primary topics are about helping readers, not about anyone's pride or personal views. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TrumpTrump (disambiguation) – i am for this redirecting to Donald Trump. not many people look for trump as in card games, and if you go to massviews, change the source to wikilinks, change the date range to 2017-01-01 - 2020-07-27, and paste http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Trump in the URL box, then the data shows that the most visited pages (besides the protection policy) are Family of Donald Trump, The Trump Organization, and Trump family, all of which are about Donald Trump, and the massviews of the pages listed that are about Donald Trump add up to 13 million. That is a huge number, and the start of the dab page also says Trump most commonly refers to Donald Trump (born 1946), the 45th president of the United States. which adds proof that this dab page does nothing but waste the time of the 13 million people all expecting to get redirected to Donald Trump by simply typing Trump in the search box. If this were to be a redirect to Donald Trump, that would make everything easier. TheSunIsAStar147147 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

July 28, 2020

  • (Discuss)Template:Autoantigens → ? – Potentially any protein-based structure in the body could be the target of an antibody, so this template has the potential to really blow out in size by listing all those things. Normal targets for antibodies (see {{Autoantibodies}}) aren't all listed? That said, I can make neither head nor tail about what the intended scope of the template is and would like to request the community's advice on what a better name would be. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. Danski454 (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HighQ (software)HighQ Solutions Ltd. – Please move this page to change the name to HighQ Solutions Ltd. This is inline with a legal coexistence agreement between HighQ Solutions Ltd. and HighQ Computer GmbH where we have to disambiguate between the two companies. So please change this page as requested to ensure we are compliant. Thanks. Stuart Barr (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)OmphaloskepsisNavel gazing – "Navel gazing" is by far the more commonly known and used term. For empirical data, see this Google ngram search. Afterwards, the article should be edited so it's less about the word "omphaloskepsis", though, of course, that should be given as the alternate term. Largoplazo (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Timočka KrajinaTimok Valley – There is no reason to use the Serbian name. This regions counts with a sizable non-Serb minority. Furthermore, parts of Bulgaria are sometimes included in the region, and the Bulgarian name for Timok is different (Timoshko). I think it's better to use an English neutral name. Super Ψ Dro 11:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Eric Rosen (chess player)Eric Rosen – I believe Eric Rosen (chess player) is significantly more notable than Eric Rosen (justice). Someone searching Google for "Eric Rosen" will be greeted with results that are all about Eric Rosen (chess player) unless they continue to the second page. I cannot find anything in the naming conventions specifically talking about which page(s) should be disambiguated in this sort of case, but my assumption is that recognizability to the average person is paramount. AviationFreak💬 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ancient Chinese clothingHanfu – The current topic cannot describe this page correctly. First of all, Hanfu itself has nothing to do with ethnic-minority groups or someting like that. If you say a costume named after nationalities will have a race problem, how about Kimono and Hanbok, or Việt Phục? Secondly, Hanfu is not just an ancient clothing, many people wear it nowadays just like Kimono. Third, Hanfu is much more commonly used than the so called ancient Chinese clothing. 芄蘭 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

July 27, 2020

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Eldorado ResortsCaesars Entertainment (2020)Caesars Entertainment to become a disambiguation page Next week, Eldorado Resorts will complete its acquisition of Caesars Entertainment Corporation and will change its own name to "Caesars Entertainment, Inc." This will make three companies that have been named "Caesars Entertainment" over the years. This exacerbates an already bad disambiguation situation: "Inc." vs. "Corporation" is not a good way to distinguish two companies, because very few readers will already know which is which. Both of the previous Caesars had other names that they used for a longer period of time: The first one was Park Place Entertainment for 5 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 2 years. The second one was Harrah's Entertainment for 15 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 10 years. So moving these two articles back to their old names comports nicely with WP:COMMONNAME (in the span of these companies' histories, there are presumably more sources using the name that they used for a longer time) and avoids recentism bias (there's no other reason to automatically prefer the final name used by a no-longer-extant company). I'm not as sure about where to move the Eldorado Resorts article. It doesn't seem to have a good claim to being the primary topic, though perhaps it will in 10 years (when it will be the company that has used this name the longest). But there isn't a good natural disambiguation for it, and all the choices I can think of seem clunky: "Caesars Entertainment (2020)", "Caesars Entertainment (current)", "Caesars Entertainment (former Eldorado)". Toohool (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Suicide of Kurt CobainDeath of Kurt CobainWT:NPOV It cannot be called a clear-cut suicide without adequate evidence, which in this case, it lacks it and there are numerous sources backing up the claim, a basic google search would bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources; articles, books, and documentaries have been made concerning the subject. When there is a dead body, It's a death investigation. No proclamations without sufficient evidence including, victimology, medical-legal process, toxicology and autopsy especially for cases of prominent figures. Apart from the fact that this case has remained quite controversial throughout the years and is being referred to as an example of miscarriage of justice by some of the specialists, researchers, and experts because of the deficiency of required research and analysis on the case, it still shouldn't be titled as "suicide" on Wikipedia since the cause/manner of death is not mentioned in the titles of the WP articles. It can be referred to in the body or even lede as the outcome of the death case but not in the title. Princess Diana died in a car crash, Is the article's title "Car accident of Princess Diana"? Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest but is the title, "Heart attack of Michael Jackson"? No. Bionic (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog

  • (Discuss)EskmoBrendan Angelides – Angelides recently announced on his Instagram and Twitter accounts that he is officially shifting from using the artist name, "Eskmo," to "Brendan Angelides."[5] [6] In his post the artist states, "I have changed my artist name to Brendan Angelides. When I was 19, I made an album as a project to complete high school. I named it “ESKMO” and just kept going, not grasping or understanding the weight that it has for the First Peoples of Canada, Alaska and beyond." On IMDb, his page has been changed from Eskmo to Brendan Angelides, and the bio has been updated as well. His most recent credits (Naked Singularity & Minimum Mass) are credited as Brendan Angelides instead of "as Eskmo," further proof of this decision.[7]

References

  1. ^ pwadmin. "2020 Virginia State Lobby Day". Retrieved 2020-08-02.
  2. ^ "Virginia Nurses Association". virginianurses.com. Retrieved 2020-08-02.
  3. ^ "2020 Conservation Lobby Day | Friends of the Rappahannock". Retrieved 2020-08-02.
  4. ^ http://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/feb/24/arulnithi-to-star-in-eruma-saani-vijays-directorial-debut-17194.html
  5. ^ http://www.instagram.com/p/CDFYTzmhYW2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
  6. ^ http://twitter.com/B_Angelides/status/1287173166322692097?s=20
  7. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3691904/
Bobtinontinton (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TensorsketchTensor Sketch – I believe the name "Tensor Sketch" is more common (has ten times more google hits than Tensorsketch). As a relatively new name, it doesn't yet qualify for a compound noun. I have renamed the instances inside the article, but it would be best to also move the article itself. Thomasda (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hanging Gardens of BabylonHanging Gardens – There has been some moving and unmoving of this page relating to the location of the Hanging Gardens. From what I can see, there isn't enough evidence that they are now commonly known by a name other than Babylon, but I can see the argument for using Hanging Gardens by itself - the article already indicates where the ideas come from and gives some sources for this. I don't personally have a strongly vested view, but it does look like a consensus here - as opposed to move wars - would be valuable. The Parson's Cat (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Heroes' CemeteryLibingan ng mga Bayani – Previous page move in December 2011 was done swiftly, without the inputs of other Wikipedia:TAMBAYAN members. And per inputs of many Filipino Wikipedians on the talkpage it can be considered that Libingan ng mga Bayani is the most suitable name, because: *WP:PRECISE - Heroes' Cemetery is somewhat ambiguous. This Libingan ng mga Bayani is more exact and precise. *WP:COMMONNAME - the widespread usage of Libingan ng mga Bayani among Filipinos. To use @Bruce Hall:'s input in the post-move discussion, I believe that Libingan ng mga Bayani is more widely searched than Heroes' Cemetery. * Two sources presented above - from AP/Fox and The Guardian, used lowercase letters. Hence they just translated it unofficially and on the verge of neologism. I also feel that OVP and CNN Philippines sources made up the English name to just suit to their English usage. *With regards to the COMMONALITY, it doesn't mean that every people on Earth will expect to read this or edit this. This is a cemetery in the Philippines and the topic follows the Philippine format and norms. This includes the usage of the name that Filipinos typically use. That is Libingan ng mga Bayani. * This is also to be consistent with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. But for some reason the move attempt of Comission on the Filipino Language to Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino wasn't made successfully, despite the fact that User:Austronesier mentioned the majority of hits in Google Scholar for KWF (Scholar is far more reliable in scholarly community than ordinary Google searches). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Yama (Buddhism)King Yama (Buddhism) – I think we should consider moving the page name to King Yama (Buddhism) in order to avoid confusion with the page Yāma, an unrelated Buddhist heavenly realm. The figure's full name is Yamaraja (King Yama) anyways and it seems sources generally call the figure by that name. [41] [42] Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ICloud leaks of celebrity photosThe Fappening – I understand this was slightly contentious at the time and even the redirect from The Fappening was nominated for deletion because the nominator found it a "sophomoric [name] ... which has gotten traction in some of the lower-tier tabloid media/SEO blogs ... but which more proper media isn't giving the time of day" source, but now, it seems obvious "The Fappening" is the most common way of referring to this even in established and respected media, seconded by "Celebgate" (which I think should also be bolded in the opening paragraph). "ICloud leaks of celebrity photos" is a mouthful of a Wikipedia neologism that has won zero traction in the news and in academic study. Evidence: BBC: "Meet the man behind the leak of celebrity nude photos, called the fappening" [43] "Edward Majerczyk will spend nine months in jail for what was widely known as the fappening or celebgate." [44] Fox News: "Speaking of sex, the actor weighed in on "The Fappening" — the scandal involving the release of private celebrity nude photos and he said he's actually "scared" of the whole privacy invasion." [45] WaPo: "What makes the Sony hack any different from the ‘Fappening’?" [46] The Economist: "Then, when the iCloud hacking scandal broke - the so-called "Fappening" - they published a scathing indictment of anyone who had the nerve ..." [47] Politico: "Eric Goldman, the co-director of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute, says: “If Gawker wins, I think it will further embolden online publishers that anything related to celebrities is fair game. That could be used to justify publication of unredacted photos from the Fappening [last year’s massive hack of celebrities’ nude photos], for example.”" [48] "The nightmare continues for celebrities as more photos land online in what is turning out to be the Fappening 2.0." [49] The New Yorker: "It also found a name—the Fappening." [50] TIME Magazine: "Celebgate' Hacker Gets 18-Month Sentence for Hacking Celebrity Nude Photos" "What followed became known as Celebgate or “The Fappening,” in which private photographs from celebrities, including actress Jennifer Lawrence and model Kate Upton, were leaked online in September 2014." [51] Furthermore, on Google Scholar, a search for "the fappening" generates 725 results, among them the following mentions, some in the titles of the papers: "#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures" [52] "Analyzing Virtual Manhood: Qualitative Analysis of Fappening-Related Twitter Data" [53] "This article engages with media responses to the 2015 Ashley Madison hack (which largely exposed the sexual details of adult heterosexual men) and the 2014 ‘Fappening’ hack (which exposed private sexual images of adult female celebrities)." [54] "In their study of Twitter response to The Fappening, the widely publicized 2014 nude photo hacking of hundreds of largely white, able‐bodied, heterosexual, cisgender, celebrity women, they found four distinct means by which online actors signaled masculine personas ..." [55] "Celebgate: Two Methodological Approaches to the 2014 Celebrity Photo Hacks" " Internet users and media respondents have termed the phenomenon “Celebgate” or, more popularly and vulgarly, “The Fappening” (a portmanteau between ‘happening’ and ‘fap’—slang for masturbation). " [56] On Google Books, I find a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality: "In late August 2014, some of these issues allied to pornography, selfrepresentation and celebrity were captured in an event that was widely referred to as the 'Fappening', when online hackers of Apple's iCloud leaked sexually explicit images ..." Google ngrams: [57] I think "The Fappening" with ease meets all the criteria outlined in WP:CRITERIA and it's obviously the most WP:COMMONNAME for the hack/leak. Also for people objecting to the crudeness of the moniker, remember that this is irrelevant per WP:NOTCENSORED: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia" 112.69.229.205 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Evangelical Christian politics in Latin America → ? – The phenomenon is much wider, it is not all about politics. I've translated this article to Portuguese with a new name. Loosely translated, it is called "Rise of the evangelical church in Latin America". That name is more appropriate, for it also suggests that it is an unusual phenomenon. I mean, evangelical Christians haven't always had influence in politics, but all of a sudden they do. I don't know precisely what the name in English should be like, so I left question mark "?" in the field above. --Bageense(disc.) 19:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Relisting. BD2412 T 00:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:No substitution → ? – These two opposite templates display a banner in template documentation to advise if the template should always or never be substituted. Until recently, they were named "nosubst" and "subst only". Recently, they were renamed "no substiution" and "substitute only", respectively. Then the latter only was reverted. The purpose of this discussion is to resolve the current inconsistency. There has been a recent trend to use natural spacing, thus "no subst*" over "nosubst*". The further question is whether to use the abbreviation "subst" or the full word. Bsherr (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LeiziDianmu – Her popular name and searches on Google Books give slightly more results for "Duanmu" than for other names. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)70th Anniversary Grand Prix2020 70th Anniversary Grand Prix – There is a uniform name schema for individual World Championship race articles: "YEAR NAME Grand Prix". As was already agreed above, the "NAME" in this case is "70th Anniversary", as it indeed serves as a single semantic entity and can't be broken into "70th" and "Anniversary" without changing its meaning. So unlike some claims made in various recent discussions, the "70th" part can't serve as a substitute for the year (or indeed for the ordinal number of the particular race in a series, as in e.g. "2º Gran Premio di San Marino", which it is not in this case) even if it sort of uniquely identifies the season. I say "sort of" because even the year/season could be arrived at by different means as either 2019 (70th running of the World Championship) or 2020 (70th anniversary of the first WC race, as indeed intended by the FIA here). There is no reason to deviate from this standard race article naming schema – as we use it on Wikipedia even for true one-off races (like Styrian or Tuscan this year). And additionally, even the official name of this 70th Anniversary Grand Prix doesn't omit the year ("Emirates Formula 1 70th Anniversary Grand Prix 2020"). So to summarize, there are three good reasons to stick to the standard naming convention: to maintain uniformity among the related article names; to avoid any confusion as to the year/season where any confusion could be easily avoided in the first place by explicitly stating the year; and to take into account that even the official name includes the year of the running. cherkash (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Nikkō, TochigiNikkō – There is no other serious disambiguation. Most search results end up with the town, other Nikkōs are named after it. Gryffindor (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 14:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Michael SnowdenMick Snowden – Mick Snowden is more commonly used to discuss this player. Player uses Mick Snowden on his social media accounts[5][6][7] and other rugby sites including Ultimate Rugby,[8] ESPN,[9] and itsrugby[10] all use Mick instead of Michael. News sources also tend to use Mick instead of Michael as well when discussing the player.[11][12] Therefore, I believe it would be suitable to move this page to Mick Snowden.

References

  1. ^ "Dart River/Te Awa Whakatipu - NZGB Gazetteer". gazetteer.linz.govt.nz. Land Information New Zealand. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  2. ^ "Dart River/Te Awa Whakatipu". National Library of New Zealand. National Library of New Zealand. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  3. ^ Tyerman, Justine (4 February 2016). "At the source of history: Dart River, Aspiring National Park". Stuff. Stuff. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  4. ^ "Rees-Dart Track Brochure" (PDF). Department of Conservation. Department of Conservation. Retrieved 25 July 2020.
  5. ^ "Mick Snowden". Twitter. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  6. ^ "Mick Snowden". Instagram. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  7. ^ "Mick Snowden". LinkedIn. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  8. ^ "Mick Snowden". Ultimate Rugby. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  9. ^ "Mick Snowden". ESPN Rugby. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  10. ^ "Mick Snowden". itsrugby. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  11. ^ "Rugby Union: Mick Snowden celebrates his Waratahs debut with win over his former side". The Northern Daily Leader. 20 March 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  12. ^ "Gerrard follows his gut leading Warringah in Shute Shield". The Sydney Morning Herald. 9 August 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Malformed requests

Possibly incomplete requests

References


See also