Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RM)
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 of the following apply:

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

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

Do not put more than one open move request on the same 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 23 March 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.

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).

{{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 23 March 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:06, 23 March 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 23 March 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 19:06, 23 March 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 23 March 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019‎ (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section 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 23 March 2019

– why Example (talk) 19:06, 23 March 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 23 March 2019

– why Example (talk) 19:06, 23 March 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 up to three times.

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

March 23, 2019

  • (Discuss)Charlestown BridgeNorth Washington Street Bridge (Boston) – The bridge in Boston was renamed by the city in 1910 (see page 4). The new name seems to be consistently used by the state and the city (including the mayor).[1] Local media also uses the new name.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
    Update: The Charlestown Bridge was also the name of a weekly newspaper serving this area, which merged to become the Charlestown Patriot-Bridge in 2005.[8][9] This might result in some ambiguity when identifying usage of the name "Charlestown Bridge"; in fact, information about the newspaper and the bridge are conflated on several mapping/travel websites (see discussion).
    The bridge in DeWitt, Arkansas is on the National Register of Historic Places. Its title needs to be disambiguated from the bridge in Boston.

  1. ^ Walsh, Martin J. (December 9, 2018). "Mayor's Column: How We're Working to Replace the North Washington Street Bridge". Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  2. ^ Vaccaro, Adam (October 18, 2018). "The North Washington Street bridge replacement might not be so awful with this new fix". The Boston Globe. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  3. ^ Fisher, Jenna (October 15, 2018). "North Washington Street Bridge Replacement: Temp Bridge To Come". Charlestown, MA Patch. Patch Media. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  4. ^ Acitelli, Tom (August 22, 2018). "North Washington Street Bridge repairs in Boston to last five years". Curbed Boston. Vox Media. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  5. ^ Daniel, Seth (April 20, 2018). "North Washington Street Bridge Project Ready to Proceed". Charlestown Patriot-Bridge. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  6. ^ Pfohl, Chris (February 1, 2019). "Guest Op-Ed: Renovating the North Washington Street Bridge". Charlestown Patriot-Bridge. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  7. ^ "Here's what will replace a 117-year-old Boston bridge". WCVB-TV. Boston. October 24, 2017. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  8. ^ 2006 Congressional Record, Vol. 52, Page E63-1 (February 1, 2006).
  9. ^ Daniel, Seth (January 6, 2018). "The Town's Family Bible: Old Charlestown Patriot Newspapers Now Digitized". Charlestown Patriot-Bridge. Retrieved March 22, 2019.
Davidpward (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)The MidlandsMidlands – My primary reason for this proposal is that I believe that the title violates WP:THE. In The Hague, for instance, "The" is treated as an integral part of the name and is written in uppercase even in the middle of a sentence. But for the Netherlands, that is not the case. I think the Midlands are much more similar to the Netherlands in this respect. Note that the region is frequently referred to as "Midlands" alone in titles, which would be impossible if "The" were an inseparable part of the name. As the disambiguation page is in the way, something has to be done about it. Personally, I'd favor just asserting primacy as this page gets 10x the pageviews of the next contender, Midlands Region, Ireland. However, I would also regard moving the current page to Midlands (England) as superior to the present situation, as my intention is not to make this a dispute about the primary topic of "Midlands" but rather a proposal to remove "The" from the title. King of ♠ 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

March 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)ChairmanChair (officer) – Lots of readers will feel excluded by the current title. Common alternatives are Chair (officer) and Chairperson. Please state your preference when commenting. A few sources: #Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition, 2017, 5.250, p. 318: "chair; chairman; chairwoman; chairperson. Chair is widely regarded as the best gender-neutral choice. Since the mid-seventeenth century, chair has referred to an office of authority." #European Union. The EU's Interinstitutional style guide and English Style Guide (26 February 2019, 15.1) both say: "gender-neutral language is nowadays preferred wherever possible. In practice, gender-neutral drafting means two things [including] avoiding nouns that appear to assume that a man rather than a woman will perform a particular role: ‘chairman’ is the most obvious example." #WP:MOS#Gender-neutral language: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Firby, North YorkshireFirby – DAB from the 2 places with this name, although the surname article gets more views [[2]] its not overwhelming. There is also probably a lot of content at the surname article that should instead be on the settlement articles. A Google search throws up JR Firby Ltd. There is also Firby Lake in Canada[3]. If the DAB page isn't moved to the base name it should be moved to Firby (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME since the current title reflects an incomplete disambiguation page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Smeller (technology)Smeller – Move the article about the art installation to the base name over the redirect, with a hatnote to Nose. A reader looking for "Smeller" in an encyclopedia is more likely to be looking for the work with this actual name rather than the body part/informal slang. If this is done, delete the existing hatnote at Nose and delete (G14) Smeller (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)News CorpNews Corp (2013–present) – The original and spin-off News Corp companies have nearly identical page views several years following the spin-off. Since the original company is still of high profile, the spin-off should be disambiguated by its year of establishment and the "News Corp" namespace be redirected to the original company and clarified by hatnote since the spin-off is comparatively second in importance. WikiRedactor (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)PVRISPvris – You say Pvris like a word, not spelling it out, so it should get like this. It's like the Chvrches article title, you know. --Quiz shows 04:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bradleyll (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C 18:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Template:RISC-based processor architecturesTemplate:RISC architectures – The current name is overly verbose ("RISC-based processor" is redundant, it's understood that RISC relates to the processor), unwieldy, and potentially ambiguous ("processor architecture" could be reasonably construed to mean microarchitecture.). The current name is also unpleasant and makes little sense if the RISC acronym is expanded: reduced instruction set computer-based processor architecture. "RISC architectures" succinctly conveys the template's purpose. 99Electrons (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. KCVelaga (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mohamaad GhibranGhibran – As per WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the page should be Ghibran and not his full name. This is already done by wikipedia for other celebrities who are better known by a single name, for example Madonna (entertainer)'s article is not titled as Madonna Louise Ciccone rather by the name she is commonly known. I also have researched a few references that confirm that Ghibran is his common name even in references that interview him directly - these can be taken as good sources: [11][12][13][14][15]. Also, the name Ghibran already redirects to this article which means there's no other Ghibran on Wikipedia and there should be no objection. In future if there's another Ghibran, disambiguation can be created under due process either creating disambiguation page or keeping the more prominent one on the title Ghibran but as far as wikipedia goes for now, the title should be Ghibran. I have researched a bit and I think my request to move / rename is very reasonable. Due to previous disruptions on the article, the move seems to be locked so I am requesting that it be moved by an administrator. Ptinsker (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)David Burgess (immigration lawyer)Sonia BurgessMOS:GENDERID says "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." The Guardian, despite their terrible use of language, make it clear she was a trans woman known as Sonia Burgess: "Although known as David in his professional life, he was transgendered, and in recent years spent more time in his female persona, Sonia." Wickedterrier (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)P-P HartnettPP Hartnett – As mentioned in the article, the old stylised pen name has not been used for 12 years, and PP Hartnett is now the correct style and used on all his books. Markremde (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bed (film) → ? – Artice was last moved to its current title in 2017 on the basis that it is "not an acronym", however promotional blurb suggests otherwise [16]. External sites tend to use "B.E.D" (no period at the end) [17] or "B.E.D." (with a period) [18][19][20], though the film poster and dvd cover appear to omit the periods altogether, i.e. "BED" [21]. I can find little usage of the uncaptialised form "Bed". Options are therefore B.E.D (film), B.E.D. (film), or BED (film). PC78 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)Field pea → ? – The term "field pea" is highly ambiguous; in much of the world it refers to a type of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), and there are already a number of erroneous incoming links to this article. The cowpea called "field pea" dominates web searches[23] due to its greater number of culinary uses, while this topic, the Pisum sativum variant, dominates books searches[24] due to its prominence as a forage, silage, etc. crop. —  AjaxSmack  21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Xain36 {talk} 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. While there's a clear consensus to move disambiguation page to Field pea, a broader consensus is required on the fate of current Field pea article.   samee  converse  22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ACC Network (TV channel)ACC Network – This is now the primary topic and already redirects here. There is no need for the parenthetical disambig. A hatnote at the top of the article points to the defunct network. All recent news coverage is about the new ACC Network. I have gone through and manually fixed all of the old redirects. The now-defunct network--ACC Network (Raycom Sports)--was moved out of the primary topic slot in a previous move discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)Israeli permit system in the West BankIsraeli permit regime in the West Bank – This is the term used in scholarly works that deal with the entirety of the topic. Above, users have made a number of spurious arguments about regime. One of them is that it is non-neutral, based off sources that say calling a government a regime is disparaging. Yes, that is true, however we are not calling a government a regime, we are calling a legal regime a legal regime. The reason this should be moved is that is what the sources call it. Examples, and this is by no means a comprehensive list: * Berda, Yael (2018). Living emergency : Israel's permit regime in the occupied West Bank. Stanford, California: Stanford Briefs, an imprint of Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-0282-3. OCLC 994974366. * Gordon, N. (2008). Israel's Occupation. University of California Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-520-94236-3. Retrieved 2019-03-19. Even this cursory overview suggests that the permit regime infiltrated almost every aspect of Palestinian society, creating an intricate web through which the population was managed. Indeed revealing the way the permit regime spread across the entire social terrain and the way it shaped the minutest daily practices sheds light on the vast resources and energe put into administering the occupied inhabitants, both on the level of the individual Palestinian. The permit regime functioned simultaneously as the scaffolding for many other forms of control and thus as part of the infrastructre of control, as well as a controlling apparatus in its own right. * Margalit, Alon; Hibbin, Sarah (2011). "Unlawful Presence of Protected Persons in Occupied Territory? An Analysis of Israel's Permit Regime and Expulsions from the West Bank under the Law of Occupation". 13. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law: 245–282. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_7. ISSN 1389-1359. * "The economic effects of restricted access to land in the West Bank" (PDF). World Bank. 2008. p. 5. Furthermore, combined with checkpoints and a permit regime imposed on access of Palestinians from other areas to the Jordan Valley, Israel is enforcing a de facto Eastern Separation Zone without walls or fences along the Jordan Valley and the shores of the Dead Sea. This zone includes 43 Israeli settlements and 42 Palestinian localities. * Tawil-Souri, Helga (2011). "Colored Identity". Social Text. Duke University Press. 29 (2): 78. doi:10.1215/01642472-1259488. ISSN 0164-2472. Not long after the 1967 occupation, Israel ordered implementation of a collective permit to enter Israel, mandatory for all Palestinians, which metamorphosed into the current individual permit regime after the first intifada. Even the sources that other editors claim are "more neutral" above, such as the AP, and that use "permit system" in fact use "permit regime". This AP source was provided as evidence that "permit system" should be preferred. However it actually repeatedly refers to a "permit regime" (quotes are As a sign of how central the system is to everyone’s lives, the Arabic Facebook page of the head of COGAT, Gen. Yoav Mordechai, has more than 410,000 followers, most likely almost all of them Palestinians, watching for any announcements concerning the permit regime. and Critics say that turned a defensive measure into a land grab. It also created a complex subset of the permit regime.) Other news sources likewise use "permit regime" when discussing the overarching method of control. *BBC: The Israeli authorities say they are implementing a security regime under which Palestinians must apply for permits to leave the occupied territories into "Israel proper". ... Ten Israeli coach drivers were also arrested and face charges for breaching the permit regime. *Haaretz: Human rights organizations have challenged the permit regime on various grounds. ... The checkpoint-monitoring organization Machsom Watch claims that the Shin Bet security service uses the permit regime to recruit informers. *AP: In the beginning, there were no barriers. But with the outbreak of Palestinian unrest in the late 1980s, Israel began imposing security closures and a permit regime. The author of the book above published by Stanford University Press titled Living Emergency: Israel's Permit Regime in the Occupied West Bank wrote, on the SU Press blog, the following:

    The term “permit regime” refers to a bureaucratic apparatus of the occupation modeled around that which developed in the West Bank between the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 through the early 2000s, when the separation barrier made West Bank residents increasingly dependent on permits from the Israeli army’s Civil Administration for movement within the West Bank, as well as for permission to enter Israel.

    The sources that are focused on this subject use "permit regime". A blind google search result does not, in any way, negate that fact. The argument that regime is non-neutral is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. This is not a case of calling a government a regime because one disagrees with that government. This is a set of laws and military orders that govern a set of people. More commonly known as a legal regime. Nableezy 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Al-Salam Stadium (Cairo)Al Salam Stadium – There are only two stadiums known as Al Salam Stadium. One located in Egypt and the other in Israel. However only the stadium in Egypt is officially known with that name; the other stadium in Israel is officially known as HaShalom Stadium and sometimes refereed to as Al Salam Stadium. With that being said, I don't think a WP:DAB article (Al-Salam Stadium) is needed. I think that it should be deleted and the stadium in Egypt should be moved to Al Salam Stadium with a WP:HAT added on top of the article to avoid confusion with the other stadium in Israel. The stadiums in Egypt hosts the matches for two top tier sides in Egypt and sometimes it also hosts matches for the Egypt national football team; while the stadium in Israel is the home for two clubs playing in the third and fourth tiers in the country. Thus - deleting the DAB and having a hat note directing to the Israeli one is a good solution in my opinion sine the Egyptian usage is by far the most common. Ben5218 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sinhalese languageSinhala language – Revert to the title reached in the previous consensus * Consensus reached three times before that the title should use "Sinhala" instead of "Sinhalese" * Google Trends shows the ratio of "Sinhala":"Sinhalese" in searches was 4:1 in 2004, increasing to greater than 80:1 since October 2015. No country had fewer searches for "Sinhala" than "Sinhalese", with ratios varying from 8:1 (Canada and the US) to 99:1 or greater (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Oman, Italy, Japan) * Google Ngrams shows the ratio of "Sinhala *":"Sinhalese *" in book searches was approximately 5:3 by 2008 * "Sinhalese" can be used for both the people and and the language, so directly comparing "Sinhalese" and "Sinhala" on Google Ngrams is not useful * Verifying the results from Google Ngrams shows most uses of "Sinhalese" after 1990 referring to the people and "Sinhala" being used in contrast to refer to the language * Seven instances of consensus, attempted moves, and discussions that the title should use "Sinhala", not "Sinhalese" on the Sinhala language talk page * The New York Times consistently uses "Sinhala" for the language and "Sinhalese" for the people * BBC in other languages (at the bottom of the page) calls the language "Sinhala" * Some other reputable publications such as Encylopaedia Britannica use both "Sinhala" (1, 2) and "Sinhalese" inconsistently, and the ratio between them is not clear * Wikipedia only uses "Sinhala" when linking to the equivalent article in Sinhala In short, authors/publishers, the general public, and Wikipedia all prefer "Sinhala" to "Sinhalese" when referring to the language Danielklein (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)Russell InvestmentsFrank Russell Company – As the step 1 of the proposed split (see above thread). This article was mostly about "Frank Russell Company", the central company of the former Russell group, not the subsidiary Russell Investments. Thus the article title should reflect this first to retain the purpose of this wiki article as an article for a company/group before 2015 split. LSEG only sold Russell Investments the second-tier subsidiary, not the subsidiary Frank Russell Company and all its subsidiaries. (see press release: "Frank Russell Company's asset management business ('Russell Investments')") The index provider "Russell" was "merged" or now sharing a trading name FTSE Russell with FTSE Group, thus future and current event of Russell as indexer should go to FTSE Russell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)CutsCuts (TV series)WP:ASTONISH DAB from Cutting, Wound, Cuts, Oise, Cuts (EP), Cuts (album) and the other uses listed at Cut. This was originally a redirect to Cut until it was overwritten with the sitcom. A simple Google and Books search shows few results for the sitcom. While views [[31]] show that the sitcom gets more views than articles titles "Cuts" wound and cutting get more views and those and the place in France have more long-term significance even though "readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form" plurals are still de facto full matches for primary topic consideration. I disambiguated Commons:Category:Cuts which was about the place in France and had quite a few things not intended for it. DAB format is the same as those in Category:2000s American black sitcoms. Either Cuts should be a DAB page or it should redirect to Cut. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Digital terrestrial television in the United StatesDigital television in the United States – I have two contentions with this article's recent rename by Bankster: * The lede suggests the scope of the article is not merely broadcast television, mentioning cable and satellite services, so the rename actually is not in sync with the article's contents. * While I understand that the term "digital terrestrial television" is used in other parts of the world, it wasn't ever used in the United States. I believe this would be a varieties of English issue, not an article naming consistency issue. Raymie (tc) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)Norwegian Wood (disambiguation)Norwegian Wood – Currently, Norwegian Wood is a redirect to the song Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). However, this article receives less than a quarter of all page views, and the novel alone receives twice as many page views as the song. Also, three quarters of the readers who search for "Norwegian Wood" apparently end up clicking through to the dab page [32]. The song is clearly not the primary topic with respect to usage, and it's not the primary topic with respect to long-term significance either: the fact that the names of the other entries ultimately go back to the song is irrelevant, and the concerns about recentisms expressed in the previous RM, albeit reasonable at the time (the RM occurred a year after the film was released), are hardly germane anymore given that the main primary topic contender is a book published 30 years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Meaningful voteMeaningful vote on Brexit – The term "meaningful vote" is so ordinary, common and colloquial that can describe any vote which is so important and has enormous and profound effect, whatever the country, region and issue. However, this article mainly talks about the so-called "meaningful vote" held in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on Brexit. Thus, it is a good idea to add "on Brexit" to the end of the original title to make this article's title more accurate, precise and rigorous.
    08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Pange lingua gloriosi corporis mysteriumPange lingua – By far the more commonly known of the hymns in the English speaking world because of its association with Aquinas, the traditional use of its various parts in Eucharistic adoration, and the fact that is is sung on Maundy Thursday in Roman Catholic liturgies, making it one of the single most visible and noticeable Catholic hymns of all time. The current page at Pange lingua is little more than a glorified disambiguation page, and I'd suggest it could likely be G6'd and a hatnote added to this page to point to the other hymn. If people want to keep the history, it can be moved to Pange lingua (disambiguation). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Moataz Al JunaidiMootaz Jounaidi – I'm bringing this discussion back because I'm not convinced that Moataz is his common name in English. While yes, I agree that "Mootaz" isn't the correct spelling of the name, most reliable sources refer to him as such. See Fox Sports, The Roar, L'Orient-Le Jour, CNN ecc...). While there are some (10) articles that call him Moataz, more than 60 call him Mootaz. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Democracy IndexThe EIU Democracy Index – This article is not a general one about the concept of a "Democracy Index" and a description of various constructions. Instead it is about one specific "Democracy Index" and thus this should be made explicitly clear in the article title (not just the lede). Note that this is how the EIU themselves refer to their index - cf. the page title on this page: "EIU Democracy Index 2018 - World Democracy Report" Oska (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)Hearts (disambiguation)Hearts – DAB from Heart and the other various articles at the DAB page, while per WP:PLURALPT "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form" in this case there are a number of other articles at the plural form and the singular does get over 8.5x the views and Heart of Midlothian F.C. comes up first in a Google search (though I don't think that's a major contender here, its existence does help to push over into the situation where disambiguation is probably best). Note that Cars (film) gets a comparable number of views compared to Car but the vehicle is still primary for "Cars" and although the card came isn't a recent topic and Hears aren't pluralized as much as cars it does seem that there is no clear primary topic for the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kanagawa Eastern LineSōtetsu Shin-Yokohama Line – This article was presumably created by Google translating '神奈川東部方面線', but this does not qualify for WP:COMMONNAME, not being used by the construction authorities nor by the press. For its operation this line has been named Sōtetsu Shin-Yokohama Line [33], and that is the name passengers will call it by. Arguably most readers outside Japan will have little interest in what the Shin-Yokohama Line was called during construction, the name that will be used during its servicing is more appreciated. Hms1103 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)ÓBerytus WomenÓBerytus – I wrongly assumed that they had a men's department. They are only known as ÓBerytus, there is no need to add "Women" to the title. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)HMS Belfast (C35)HMS Belfast – This ship is very well known and I was going to argue for its WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status, before I realised that the only other HMS Belfast does not even exist yet, and does not even have an article. So this is not even a WP:TWODABS situation, the "disambiguation page" needn't exist, thus this article is the primary topic. I personally suggest it stays this way and a hatnote for the new one be placed, should an article be created. Lazz_R 13:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Date format by countryAll-numeric date format by country – The article tracks numeric date formats specifically, with only a few exceptions in the table. (If it were tracking date formats generally, it would cease to make sense, as some countries might use YYYY-MM-DD as their sole official all-numeric date format but day month year for their full date.) Having this focus reflected in the title would make it much easier to understand what this article is trying to achieve. AndrewNJ (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)New York Field ClubNew York F.C. – While New York Field Club is the correct name for the completely separate 1932 club, the club that played in the NAFBL and the original ASL was called the New York Football Club (renamed New York Soccer Club after the 1921/22 season). There has been confusion of "Field Club" teams and "Football Club" teams with similar names and which has combined those together. For example, the original ASL Philadelphia Football Club has been given the name Philadelphia Field Club, just as here the original NAFBL & ASL New York Football Club has been given the name New York Field Club. These Field Clubs were part of a few completely separate leagues that were around in the late 1910s and early 1920s. Theses were leagues of association football teams based at field clubs (basically country clubs) in New York (the Field Club Soccer League), New Jersey and Philadelphia. While these field clubs would play a schedule, each league would also put together a team of members for inter-city games with other leagues. It was these teams that were called "Philadelphia Field Club" and "New York Field Club" when they played those inter-city games. For reference about field clubs, see "English Speaking World", September 1920, page 20. For reference about New York F.C.'s name, see the Spalding's Soccer Football Guides from that time period ( An issue on this page is that only the top section (above New York Field Club II) should be moved. The New York Field Club II should stay on this page. It does add to the confusion that this separate 1932 pro ASL club is called "New York Field Club"! DC (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Philadelphia Field ClubPhiladelphia F.C. – None of these pro clubs were called "Philadelphia Field Club" but were "Philadelphia Football Club". There has been confusion of "Field Club" teams and "Football Club" teams with similar names and which has combined those together. For example, the original NAFBL/ASL New York Football Club has been given the name New York Field Club, just as here the original (and subsequent) ASL Philadelphia Football Club has been given the name Philadeplhia Field Club. These Field Clubs were part of a few completely separate leagues that were around in the late 1910s and early 1920s. Theses were leagues of association football teams based at field clubs (basically country clubs) in New York (the Field Club Soccer League), New Jersey and Philadelphia. While these field clubs would play a schedule, each league would also put together a team of members for inter-city games with other leagues. It was these teams that were called "Philadelphia Field Club" and "New York Field Club" when they played those inter-city games. For reference about field clubs, see "English Speaking World", September 1920, page 20. For reference about the original ASL Philadelphia F.C.'s name, see the Spalding's Soccer Football Guides from 1921/22 & 1922/23 ( DC (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shuffle danceMelbourne shuffle – Someone previously moved it from the original Melbourne shuffle, to Shuffle dance, without giving any real reason other than their personal opinion. As per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:COMMONNAME the article should be named according to the citations. Claims regarding the disputed nature of "Melbourne" part of the name, the history and origin story were un-cited and completely bias and not written from a nuetral point of view, based entirely on Youtube videos and original research and not even remotely verifiable, no reliable source disputes the Melbourne origins, in-fact the Age newspaper had this to say:

    To the untrained eye it might look like a cross between the chicken dance and a foot-stomping robot. But to the young nightclubbers who spend countless hours mastering it, the Melbourne shuffle is an art form, and recognised in international dance circles as Melbourne's own :

    All citations that refer to the dance by name refer to it as the "Melbourne shuffle", not even a single reliable citation refers to merely the "shuffle dance". Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Strong Arms of the MaThe Strong Arms of the Ma – The official title listed in the Simpsons World streaming service includes the word "The". The same can be said about its DVD/Blu-ray and digital releases. The script cover for this episode also confirms this fact, in addition to a show-related book called The Simpsons One Step Beyond Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Continued Yet Again (page 82). ConspiracyStuff (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Sint-Jans-MolenbeekMolenbeek-Saint-Jean – Recently, there have been a couple of attempts to change the lead to the French name for the town, which is in the form used at the town's website, along with the Dutch version (depending on which language you view it in). A misplaced attempt to request a move on the article was made with the rationale "the French name is used much more often and people are more familiar with it, therefore it makes sense to change it because it is confusing". This seems a legitimate issue for discussion, so I'm starting the move request, noting only that the Dutch name for the article has been fairly longstanding. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Martin FfolkesMartin ffolkes – This page has been moved from its proper place, without giving any reason, or without discussing it. My guess is that the editor was in the mistaken impression that there was a typographical error (one which has persisted for years. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Dive Bar TourBud Light × Lady Gaga Dive Bar Tour – I would suggest that we rename the article to "Bud Light × Lady Gaga Dive Bar Tour", because Bud Light teamed up with other performers, too, including Post Malone and G-Eazy, and all of heir shows were likewise called Dive Bar Tour/Bud Light Dive Bar Tour. Many sources referred to the concert series as Bud Light x Lady Gaga Dive Bar Tour or Bud Light + Lady Gaga Dive Bar Tour. Links: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Sricsi (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hamilton, G.G. (1990). "Patriarchy, Patrimonialism, and Filial Piety: A Comparison of China and Western Europe". British Journal of Sociology. 41 (1): 78. JSTOR 591019.
Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mitten im Leben (TV series) → ? – I have no idea what disambiguation should be used here. Both are named the same, both from Germany and both debuted in 2007. While the English disambiguation for one uses "reality TV series", the German article calls it "pseudo-docu" and (after reading with google translate) the article makes it sound more like a general TV series. Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. В²C 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


See also