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 technical move, request it below. If this is your first article and you want your draft article published, please submit it for review at Articles for creation, by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or user sandbox page instead of listing it here.

  • 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. The move is potentially controversial if any one of the following applies:

  • there is an existing article at the target title (not just a redirect with no other page history);
  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

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

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

Requesting a single page move

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 26 June 2019" and sign the post for you.

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

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

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

Single page move on a different talk page

Occasionally, a move request is made for a page that is not the subject page of the talk page on which the request must be made. An example would be to make a request to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources to, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates. The talk page of the project page to be moved, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources, redirects to the main subject talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, to centralize discussions, so that is where the requested move should be made using the following code:

{{subst:requested move|reason=(the reason for the page move goes here).|current1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources|new1=WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}
and generally:
{{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.

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 26 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (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 26 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (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 26 June 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019‎ (UTC)

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.
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 26 June 2019

– why Example (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (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 26 June 2019

– why Example (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Commenting in 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 instructions

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 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 also signs it automatically, and is placed at the very end of the initial request (after their signature, and subsequent re-listers signatures). When a discussion has been relisted a bot partially underlines the "Discuss" link in the lists of debates: (Discuss).

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

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as 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.


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

June 26, 2019

  • (Discuss)The Hunting → ? – More descriptive heading, in line with others; either The Hunting (Australian TV series) or The Hunting (2019 TV series) or just The Hunting (TV series)? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Grey Goo (video game)Grey Goo – Per WP:DIFFCAPS. The scientific concept is not a proper noun, and is therefore typically called "Gray goo". Similarly to how we say "Outer space" and not "Outer Space". There is therefore no need for the disambiguation in the title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

June 25, 2019

  • (Discuss)Camargo CorrêaMover Participações – The company went through a full rebrand in 2018, changing the name from Grupo Camargo Corrêa to Mover Participações. The company website will corroborate the changes. Jonrz (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Basma (actress)Basma Hassan – Unfortunately User:Meno25 moved this page from Basma Hassan without discussion. The rule on WP:MONONYMs is: don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used. For example, Oprah Winfrey is the article title, and Oprah redirects there. Basma Hassan's last name is known and fairly often used. RJFF (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)L'amour est bleuLove Is BlueWP:COMMONNAME states that the English Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." A Google search for English language results returns only 51k results for "L'amour est bleu" Mauriat but over 280k for "Love Is Blue" Mauriat, indicating that most reliable English language sources use the English title. The U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart uses "Love Is Blue (L'amour est bleu)", and the UK Singles Chart uses the same two-language format. The 2003 book The Billboard Book of Number One Hits uses the English title most of the time. A front-page story from the February 17, 1968 Billboard magazine in America mentions "Love Is Blue" without the French name. This song is more widely known around the world by its English title, because Paul Mauriat's instrumental version marketed with the English title made the music charts not just in Europe but also the U.S. The original version with the French title and lyrics was popular only in Europe. Because this song is more widely known in the English-speaking world as "Love Is Blue" I propose using that title. In contrast, the article about the German language song "99 Luftballons" retains the German title, because the German version was more popular around the world (including the US) than the English remake. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June 24, 2019

  • (Discuss)Dan Levy (producer)Dan Levy (actor) – While I don't disagree in principle that it was time to consider moving this from the original "Dan Levy (TV personality)", I don't believe "producer" was the right choice of new disambiguator: at this point, his primary notability claim is not that he was a producer of Schitt's Creek, it's that he was an actor who appeared in the show. We don't move articles to new titles "to reflect their career evolution" every time the subject adds a new role to his résumé (e.g. we don't move a person from "politician" to "lawyer" just because they've quit politics and gone back into law, or from "musician" to "writer" the moment they've also written a book) — we use the person's primary notability claim as their disambiguator, and then leave it there unless very maybe one of those job titles manages to substantively outnotable it in the future. At this point, Levy's strongest notability claim is as an actor, not as a producer — so he should be dabbed as actor, and this should be reconsidered in the future only if and when a credible case can be made that his production work has become more notable than his acting. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Matthieu MaraisMathieu Marais – The baptismal act of Marais quoted in the preamble of Journaux et mémoires (ed.1863) says he received the name of "Mathieu", and in a letter to the president Jean Bouhier (dated of September 5, 1724) Marais wrote his name with the same spelling; "Matthieu" is posterious: the first time it appear is in the Ouvrage de La Fontaine (ed.1823) & biographical dictionaries — the Wikipedia article is a translation of the Didots brothers Nouvelle biographie générale (ed.1860). The links of the authority control attest of the correct writing. François-Etienne (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)William Wither BeachBramston Beach – His full name was William Wither Bramston (Hicks-)Beach, but he was known as Bramston rather than by either of his first two names. A hatnote can then point to the place in Queensland. Opera hat (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sir Thomas GreenThomas Green (grandfather of Catherine Parr) – This entry was listed a day or two ago at uncontroversial technical requests, but has remained unresolved. The text accompanying the submission pointed out that the honorific was not needed, but did not include a suggestion as to how the main header should be disambiguated. Subject's standing as ancestor of Henry VIII's last wife seems to be a reasonable qualifier, while other editors may propose qualifiers which are deemed to be more intuitive. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2019 Venezuelan uprising30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes – This article's name has been the subject of vibrant discussion on this talk page for more than a month, and I'd like for us to achieve a consensus and put it to rest. I believe this proposed title is both well-sourced per WP:V and neutral per WP:NPOV. Both the current title and other proposed titles (such as coup) have been strongly opposed, but I believe this proposed title meets the concerns of said titles' oppositions. This has been discussed for weeks, but it was requested that I start another RM. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 07:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Clean WehrmachtMyth of the Clean Wehrmacht – Article titles reflect what the articles are about. Here the title suggests that we're writing about a phenomenon ("cleanliness of the Wehrmacht"), when we're actually writing about the myth of the phenomenon. We ought, then, to use the correct classifier, just as we do with "Moon landing conspiracy theories" and "Holocaust denial" (though the latter should more appropriately be called "denialism"). Using the existing name without a classifier suggests the phenomenon was real rather than mythical, which is inappropriate for a subject of this gravity and contention. If this was listed as one myth of many, then we could've used it without a classifier, but as it is rarely the case (see this change for typical usage), we ought to clarify from the get-go what it is and what it isn't. François Robere (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TaraxacumDandelion – The article for dandelions uses the scientific name of the plant, Taraxacum. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly discourages this: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Applying WP:GOOGLETEST as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME shows that there are ~4.7M hits for "Taraxacum", and ~122M (more than 25x more) for "dandelion". I would move the article myself, but I'm unable to for some reason. Stephen Hui (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kim's Convenience (TV series)Kim's Convenience – It's been a little over a year since the last move discussion (directly above this on the article talk page), which resulted in the play of the same name being moved from the primary → Kim's Convenience (play) and the primary being made into a dab page. Pageview statistics (all time & since the move) show that the TV series is even more dominant. Excluding some outlier days immediately following the last move, the TV show's lowest points are 3× higher than the play's high points for the last year, and for the whole year the TV series received 16× more views than the play. The main objection to this proposal last year was WP:RECENTISM (which I felt was misapplied; that policy explanation is about a change from the established name by recent sources, not recent shifts in readership), but I don't see how a fringe festival and off-Broadway play is going to get the same attention over time as a popular TV show. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Gen HoshinoHoshino Gen – English Wikipedia's current policy on Japanese names is to "Use the form personally or professionally used by the person, if available in the English/Latin alphabet". His name is very consistently officially romanized as "Hoshino Gen". It is written in this order on the front of all of his solo music releases and in all of the images on his website on which his name is written in Roman characters. There are exceptions: his record label's page for him has one use of "Gen Hoshino" and this also tends to be used to title videos on his YouTube channel. I feel that what is on the covers of the music releases and actually in the videos (which cannot easily be changed retrospectively and is more likely to be personally supervised by him) carries more weight than these two cases (which could easily be changed as they are in the form of text rather than bitmap images and are more likely to be made by label staff without consulting him). See this discussion explaining the justification for titling Utada Hikaru with the family name first for a similar case. Tempjrds (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 06:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sarah Essen GordonSarah Essen – The character was first introduced as Sarah Essen prior to her marriage with Batman's ally Commissioner Gordon. However, because of time travels, their marriage has never taken place in the current DC Comics publications' continuity and making Gordon's first wife Barbara Eileen Kean as the only woman he married to. Despite she did not make a reappearance, it is reasoned that she is now just Sarah Essen. NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 04:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 23, 2019

  • (Discuss)Nikita (film)La Femme Nikita – The franchise information is contained in the film article, the 1990s TV series is not clearly the primary topic according to Google; is not the original topic, and was also called just "Nikita" in some markets, while the film was originally released as "La Femme Nikita" and is called that in several film databases. Since the film is the original property, the most influential and notable one, and contains the franchise information; it should take the base location; regardless, the TV series should not take the undisambiguated location, since even if the film does not move, "La Femme Nikita" should redirect to the 1990 film article. -- (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

June 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)Painful fat herniationPiezogenic papules – As an editor noted above five years ago, the phenomenon described by this page is not painful for the majority of individuals. Furthermore, the clear focus of the page is piezogenic papules (pedal and wrist), not the general phenomenon of fat herniation. The page's title is misleading in this regard. Aeffenberger (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Tigran TchoukhajianTigran Chukhajian – This is the transliteration (from the original Armenian) used by contemporary authoritative English sources, e.g. Sarkisyan in Grove Music Online (2001), cited in the article. There have been a number of varied spellings in English over the years, some of which are mentioned in the article. The page Tigran Chukhajian is currently a redirect. Smerus (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pan-African flagRed Black and Green flag – Pan-African flag is ambiguous, revisionist, and cites no sources to support it referencing the Red, Black and Green. Beginning August 13, 1920 the Declaration of the Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World referred to Red, Black and Green. Among the articles will be found Declaration 39 which states as follows: "That the colors, Red, Black and Green, be the colors of the African race." The Universal Negro Catechism defines the Red, Black and Green as: “Red is the color of the blood which men must shed for their redemption and liberty”, black for “the color of the noble and distinguished race to which we belong,” and green for “the luxuriant vegetation of our Motherland.” Nowhere does the Catechism mention a "Pan-African flag." In fact it seems the name "Pan-African flag" is a revisionist neologism in that the history of the flag up until recent years has never used such a term to the Red, Black and Green. The article Pan-African colours presents a diametrically opposed view of the subject to this article. It indicates Red Black and Green are NOT the Pan-African colors. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

June 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)Siege of Singara (344)Battle of Singara (344) – I have deeply reworded this article and improved its sources and neutralized its tone recently (the article was almost exclusively sourced with outdated 19th century sources and had a pro-Persian biased tone), thus, the cited sources in the article are all referring to a battle fought near Singara between the Sasanian and Roman forces, there is no mention of one of these Empire besieging Singara in 344. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Ned ZelićNed Zelic – One more. Retired Australian footballer. Incorrect use of the letter "ć". Ned is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the English alphabet. Simione001 (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Milan IvanovićMilan Ivanovic – Australian association football retired player, now coach. Incorrect use of the letter "ć". Milan is an Australian and this letter does not exist in the English alphabet. Simione001 (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)UK Music Charts → ?Per WP:NCCAPS, unnecessary capitalization should be avoided. This is not a list of charts produced by any individual company, so it could be retitled "List of British record charts", or just "British record charts" or "British music charts". I'm not sure which of these I would prefer. Similar articles are enumerated in Template:Record Charts. Jc86035 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Earth radiusEarth's radius – Consistency with other articles listed here and with our own usage within this article, where Earth's radius is used 6 times in the body and Earth radius 3 times (excluding the bold usage in the first line, which has to match the title). Srnec (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)ProroctvíProphecy (board game) – Reasons: 1. Clearer title for an English speaker 2. more descriptive title 3. resolving redlink at "2002" of Vladimír_Chvátil#Board_Games and possibly also elsewhere. As for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the current title grossly violates Recognizability, Naturalness and Precision, the new title meets Precision, Consistency (and Conciseness as long there is only one board game whose English name is "Prophecy"). Redirect from here should be preserved because it is the original game title. Pavel Jelínek (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Itô's lemmaItô's formula – The existing literature usually refers to it as "Itô's formula" rather than "Itô's lemma" (see the standard textbooks by Revuz & Yor, Mörters & Peres, etc. Hairer (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mount Soledad CrossMount Soledad Cross litigation – This article primarily discusses the different court cases and litigation against the cross being on public land. It seems that the article was moved to its current title in April 2019, but I disagree with that move. I believe there should be a separate article titled Mount Soledad Cross, similar to that of Peace Cross, that discusses the general history of the cross and memorial, with this article describing all the court issues. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)911 (disambiguation)911 – There is no clear primary topic over 911 (number), the source of the name of the year, the telephone number 9-1-1 (which the article says is sometimes written at "911") and the September 11 attacks. The year article has 2,584 views but 911 (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) has 2,305 (nearly as many though lacking PT#2), 911 (English group) has 2,044 (nearly as many but again lacking PT#2), the number has 1,156 (but probably has a stronger claim for PT#2) and the wrestler has 1,141. The telephone number has 15,196 but its not clear how often that is called "911" though, 9-1-1 (TV series) has 70,548 views and September 11 attacks has 260,849 though probably not a major contender for "911" [[32]]. A Google search for 911 returns 9-1-1 (TV series) first then 911 (disambiguation) (which is telling that Google thinks that the DAB is likely not the year). A Google Image search returns mainly results for cars and there are similar results for a Google Book search. A 911 returns the TV series, then the DAB page then the telephone number, then the year. In conclusion its clear that the year isn't primary by PT#1 and the number has a better claim for PT#2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)The Americans (2013 TV series)The AmericansWP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage criteria by a huge margin based on page view counts[33]; all other uses of "The Americans" are totally obscure. You can see this in WP search box too if you type in "the americans" - you'll see this article about this series and its episode articles. And by long-term significance, critically acclaimed as one of the greatest TV series of all time, now six years old and still dominating page views, it "deserves" primary topic status. The very, very few users actually looking for one of the other uses of "The Americans" can get to the dab page via the hatnote link. And, no, anyone searching with "the americans" (plural and with the the) is very unlikely to be looking for American (singular with The), Americans (plural, without the The) or The American (singular with The), so those are not relevant here. Anyone going to the trouble of including the The and using the plural Americans in their search is almost certainly looking for this article. В²C 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Swine brucellosisB. suis – follow the pattern for other species of the genus Brucella by using the species name as the article title for the B. suis species, and the common name "swine brucellosis" as a redirect to it Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Concord First Assembly AcademyCfa Academy – I am the media director for cfa Academy, and our legal name now at the Academy is cfa Academy with everything but the A in Academy being lower case. We are trying to change any remaining remnants of our old name, and we have had several individuals confused by seeing our old name on website searches, such as this one. Please refer to our website for reference. Thank you Auva91 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983)Cameron Smith – Since this was moved without broad discussion, i thought i would start it. This Cameron Smith is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by guideline 1 - pageviews higher in every way except for previous one off tournament wins for the golfer which is in part due to golf receiving a wider coverage base then rugby league (i can't get the pageviews link to work in this discussion, so i've linked it in the above unofficial move discussion. Guideline 2 - "long term significance" is demonstrated by him having a longer, more highly regarded career then any of the other athletes or people named "Cameron Smith". He's been the captain of his team since 2006, was the captain of his state and country. For people unfamiliar with Australian sports or rugby league he has been awarded the "MVP" of the league twice and international "MVP" and is the only player to kick 1,000 goals and highest point scorer in his sports league National Rugby League, which is the dominant sports league for the sport. As clear as his templates make his dominance in the sport visible. Compare that too Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) who has just started his career, who inspired this move. There's no comparison and considering the page views and long term significance to the sport of rugby league this should be the primary topic. A hatnote would fit the other league player and the golfer/American football player. GuzzyG (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash – Per WP:PRECISE. The Piper PA-46 is a commonplace general aviation aircraft that is typically involved in a significant number of fatal accidents in any given year, most of which do not meet accepted community guidelines for notability. The present title does not convey adequate information to tell the reader which PA-46 crash is discussed. The proposed title complies with community guidelines and was broadly endorsed during discussion of the previous proposal to move the page to "2019 Emiliano Sala air accident." Carguychris (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Great WorkGreat Work (Hermeticism) – This is a derived term from the much older and more notable use of "Great Work" in alchemy, currently on the page Magnum opus (alchemy). This should not receive pride of place above that page; Great Work should either hold the alchemy term or a disambiguation page. Argument: Magnum opus has high-quality citations, and unity of content. This page is split across three different meanings, focusing on one, and the majority of its content is quotes from primary sources. PDVk (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


See also