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 January 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 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:35, 23 January 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 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested moves → ? – why Example (talk) 09:35, 23 January 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 January 2019

Wikipedia:Requested movesNew – why Example (talk) 09:35, 23 January 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 January 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:35, 23 January 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 January 2019

– why Example (talk) 09:35, 23 January 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. 39 discussions have been relisted, indicated by (Discuss)

January 23, 2019

January 22, 2019

  • (Discuss)Common chimpanzeeChimpanzee – This follows the discussion and requested move at the article on the genus, now moved to that title, and much discussion and analysis is at the talk page. Some wanted the set of articles discussed together, because of the knock on effect, and this discussion is intended to reach a consensus after that close. I favoured that move and opened the request, I don't have an opinion either way on this move. cygnis insignis 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemanConduct unbecomingWP:NAMINGCRITERIA; the current name, while precise and recognizable, fails to meet the other requirements. It is not the natural term a person will search for, nor is it concise. The proposed name will better meet those requirements, while also being more recognizable (as the WP:COMMONNAME) and with little impediment to precision. The current name also reflects a specific line from the American Military Code of Justice, while this article also covers a similar, but not identical, phrase in British Military Law, and thus is somewhat inaccurate for this article. Finally, this is the WP:PTOPIC, and thus can take precedent over having the disambiguation page under the plain name. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Egg cellOvum – undiscussed merge; ovum by far the more usual name over 6 million hits to egg cell over 1 million; ngrams much higher register for Ovum; ovum used considerably on other pages. Iztwoz (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Your NameYour Name. – Per the previous discussion(s), most of people considered that that period is just a stylization, and provided several 3rd party reports and databases to support that argument. But if we check today, most of databases have already changed the name (in plain text) to the one with period, "Your Name." Check: IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, metacritic, Fandango. Those are famous 3rd-party movie-related databases in Western, and they normally don't keep the "stylization" of names (like lower cases, or "SCRE4M" mentioned before). So I would assume they consider the period a part of the name, not just a stylization. To be clear: this rename request is not asking to rename it to lowercase. fireattack (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 21, 2019

  • (Discuss)Ha DabateerHada Bateer – This is a Mongolian name, which is technically a mononym since Mongolians traditionally don't use surnames. If we have to add a space since this is what the world culture demands now, we have to do it correctly. "Hada" ("Khad", meaning "Rock" or "Crag") and "Bateer" ("Baatar", meaning "warrior", see Baghatur) are recognizable words in Mongolian. "Ha" and "Dabateer" are not. The mistake may have originated from the fact that he is a Chinese national, and "Ha" is indeed a Chinese surname. However, "Dabateer" is not possibly a Chinese given name, which always contains 1–3 syllables (characters), never 4. (Unlike in English, there are actually 2 syllables in "-teer" if it's rendered into Chinese). Timmyshin (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Kindle FireAmazon Fire tablet – The first sentence in the article says that the Kindle Fire is the former name. In fact, Amazon used the old name for the first 2 generations of their tablet. They dropped that name and called their third generation tablet the Fire HD. There is also an article called Fire Tablet that is unrelated to the Amazon tablet. I am not sure whether the current title is OK or not because there is already a hatnote linking it to the Amazon tablet. Mstrojny (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)MuMeRegional Museum of Messina – Not completely sure what should be done here. "MuMe" is a catchy title, but I don't know if it's the most common way to refer to the museum, and it can also be a bit confusing (given the unrelated Mume). The proposed title is tentative, I wouldn't oppose other variants. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

January 20, 2019

  • (Discuss)Dowland (disambiguation)Dowland – While the composer dominates in a Google search, its unlikely that many people searching in an encyclopedia would use just "Dowland". Most of the links that get linked to Dowland are for the village in Devon (example). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)FCSBFC FCSB – I'm requesting for an update regarding the title of the page, the information displayed in the infobox and for a modified version of the beginning of the article. The title should be FC FCSB. The full name, which is SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA according to the Romanian Football Federation site (link here:, should be displayed at the beginning of the article AND in the infobox. For a better understanding, I will make a comparison to A.C._Milan's page. The club's full name is Associazione Calcio Milan (S.p.A.), while FCSB's full name is SC Fotbal Club FCSB (SA). The title of the article is A.C. Milan, while the title of FCSB's page should be FC FCSB. The short names are Milan and FCSB. I'm also pointing out that FCSB & CSA Steaua București (football) are not treated in the same manner. CSA Steaua București (football)'s page has the club's full name displayed EVERYWHERE. In the title, in the infobox and in the beginning of the introduction. That's not the case for FCSB's page (or A.C._Milan's page). In conclusion, I am only asking for equal and fair treatment. If that page has the title CSA Steaua București, than this page should have FC Fcsb in the title. Also, if Steaua's wikipedia page begins with the club's full name (Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București) than so should Fcsb's page start with the full name, namely SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. And yes, ,,FC Steaua" was the old name of FC Fcsb, but that name was ILLEGALLY used ! Wikipedia should not condone an illegal act. Dante4786 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Sir, QalqilyaKhirbet Sir – The actual name of the place - per the Arabic name (in our present article), google maps (which has a Khirbat - one can dicker on e vs. a in Khirba), ARIJ (not a RS generally - but for an Arabic name - yes), B'Tselem map, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mustafabad, HaryanaSaraswati Nagar – The old name Mustafabad was officially changed to the ancient name "Saraswati Nagar" in 2016 by the state government. In case the requested new namespace "Saraswati Nagar" is not available then move it to "Saraswati Nagar, Haryana" namespace. Thanks. (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. IffyChat -- 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Renerpho (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 19, 2019

  • (Discuss)SiddheshwarSiddarameshwara – Need to settle on one of the spelling variants here rather than attempt to accommodate them all in the article title. WP:NCUE indicates the "most common" should apply although that may be controversial to demonstrate. Some Indian English newspaper articles (The Hindu, The Times of India) use Siddarameshwara, so this may be as good a variant as any to settle on. Dl2000 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Hephthalite EmpireHephthalites – The name of this article is innaccurate, not to mention less common [7] (Hephthalites also has over 6000-7000 results than Hephthalite Empire in google books); the Hephthalite state was split into several minor kingdoms after the Battle of Bukhara in 557, which makes the term 'Hephthalites' much more accurate, since it wasn't a single entity all of its history. This is mentioned in several academic sources, such as Iranica and History of Civilizations of Central Asia, who favours the term 'Hephthalites' as well; "Yet, though the power of the Hephthalites was destroyed in Transoxania, Hephthalite kingdoms remained in Afghanistan, of which fragments survived for some time even after the Arab invasions." [8] "Small Hephthalite principalities continued to exist in southern Tajikistan and Afghanistan for a long time; some of them (in particular Kabul) remained independent" [9] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)ACS Sepsi OSK Sfântu GheorgheSepsi OSK Sfântu Gheorghe – The current article name is lengthy and it may require a change, as the common name by which the team is referred to is either Sepsi OSK Sfantu Gheorghe, Sepsi OSK, Sepsi Sfantu Gheorghe or even simply Sepsi. The "ACS" in the current name appears to be futile when press reports news about the club. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)NguyenNguyễn – The particular surname mentioned in this page is Nguyễn, and I believe we should stick to the original version prior to being changed. Furthermore, there are many types of "Nguyens" in the Vietnamese language, like "Nguyên" (Yuan in Chinese) which is not exactly the same as the Nguyen mentioned here. Virtuous09 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 18, 2019

  • (Discuss)Seven Parthian clansSeven Great Houses of Iran – Google.books search: "Seven Parthian clans" gets 10,400 hits (many of whom are false positives), while "Seven Great Houses of Iran" gets 17,300. Jstor search: "Seven+Parthian+clans+Sasanian" gets 45 hits, while "Seven+Great+Houses+of+Iran+Sasanian" gets 84. "Seven Great Houses of Iran" is used by many renowned scholars/sources, including Pourshariati,[10] Rapp,[11] Bury,[12] Hussey,[13] and the Encyclopedia Iranica[14]. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

January 17, 2019

  • (Discuss)Radisson Hotel GroupRezidor Hotel Group – move back to previous article title and prepare to split the article. "Radisson Hospitality AB " formerly Rezidor Hotel Group , was only one of the company of the new group Radisson Hotel Group, the other one was Radisson Hospitality Inc, formerly Carlson Hotels. It should have 3 articles for Carlson Hotels until the rename and merge, for Rezidor Hotel Group until the rename and merge, and the new entity Radisson Hotel Group  Matthew hk (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

January 16, 2019

  • (Discuss)SolarStrikerSolar Striker – The title is "Solar Striker" and is referred to as that throughout the text. "SolarStriker" is just a stylization of the title and should not be the name for the Wikipedia page. Thank you. Bchill53 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Huron University CollegeHuron University – This name change is being requested as the university has rebranded from Huron University College to Huron University. Because of this change, users may become confused not only domestically but internationally, when searching for Huron University and another name shows. JonMunnCan (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Here Be Dragons (company)DIVISION7 – The name of this company is no longer Here Be Dragons. now redirects to, and company credits that were once attributed to Here Be Dragons are now attributed to DIVISION7. I declare a COI as a former company employee but it is important to provide the right information surrounding a company's legal name and misleading to state that Here Be Dragons as a company still exists. Gabbybrownnyc (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Repercussions of the 1994 United States broadcast TV realignmentRepercussions of the 1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment – The affiliation changes stemming from and including the Fox-New World agreement took place over the course of two to three years; as such, specifying a time span would be appropriate. Given that an additional affiliation changes related to a transaction stemming from the Fox-New World agreement took place in early 1997 (i.e., WJXX's sign-on and assumption of the ABC affiliation in Jacksonville, Florida from WJKS), "Repercussions of the 1994–97 United States broadcast TV realignment" may also be acceptable as a new title for the article. TVTonightOKC 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)1994 United States broadcast TV realignment1994–96 United States broadcast TV realignment – The affiliation changes stemming from and including the Fox-New World agreement took place over the course of two to three years; as such, specifying a time span would be appropriate. Given that an additional affiliation changes related to a transaction stemming from the Fox-New World agreement took place in early 1997 (i.e., WJXX's sign-on and assumption of the ABC affiliation in Jacksonville, Florida from WJKS), "1994–97 United States broadcast TV realignment" may also be acceptable as a new title for the article. TVTonightOKC 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Char LeclercLeclerc – Char Leclerc is not a correct designation. "Char" is just french for "tank". Correct designation can be found at Nexter Group official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemist (talkcontribs) 12:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imagingPET-MR – Change to the more common and simple name. No one would use the full "Positron emission tomography–magnetic resonance imaging" to refer to this technique unless specifically spelling out the definition, likely to a technical audience. Most patients will hear about or be told they are going into a PET-MR (or perhaps PET-MRI) machine, as they would be told they are having a PET scan or MR scan. Even amongst a technical audience the full name would be rarely used. This would also bring this article in line with the very similar PET-CT (matching this article is also why I would suggest PET-MR rather than PET/MR, which I think better indicates the two are used together, rather than as alternatives) Beevil (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Elapsed listings

  • (Discuss)Unindicted co-conspiratorCo-conspirator – This article is unnecessarily narrow. If we remove "unindicted" from the title, then we can more broadly address the status of co-conspirators, whether indicted or not, and treat the unindicted variation as a large subsection of the article. bd2412 T 19:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


  • (Discuss)Uusimaa BrigadeNyland Brigade – Nyland Brigade seems to be the name used in English in official sources, at least since some time (see discussion above). The language of the brigade is Swedish, so using the Finnish name of the region is controversial. The official name of the brigade is "Nylands brigad". LPfi (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Terror (disambiguation)Terror – There has been some back and forth recently over whether this title should point to Fear or the disambiguation page (which it can not do per WP:MALPLACED). Having worked on some of the incoming links, I believe that the disambiguation page should be moved to this title, as ambiguity has grown over the distinction between "terror" as merely an extreme kind of fear, and "terror" as the political tool which serves as the root of Terrorism. bd2412 T 04:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Mathew L. Golsteyn → ? – There was a fairly controversial discussion earlier about deleting this page. The discussion did not reach consensus, but many folks leaned towards turning this into an event page per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLP1E. I am thus opening this RM to propose renaming and refocusing the page on the incident and continuing aftermath/developments. I'm not sure what the new name should be, and am looking for suggestions/consensus. Perhaps something along the lines of Operation Moshtarak murder, Investigation of Mathew L. Golsteyn, Operation Moshtarak Green Beret incident and so on... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)2018 Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute2018 Japanese–South Korean naval dispute – The name discussed in the previous discussion was changed to another name because of WP:precision claiming. But this name is still controversial and not precise in terms of inclusiveness. there are multiple points of dispute:
    1. Did South Korean Destroyer locked on JMSDF's Maritime Patrol Aircraft?
    2. Did Japanese JMSDF Patrol Aircraft threat South korean destroyer by low-altitude flying, which operating rescue?
    and so trivial arguments on. And now each party denies the others' claim. In summary, it's better to name 2018 Japanese-South Korean naval dispute, because it includes multiple points of dispute and more precise to a current situation in terms of inclusiveness. Bluepolarbear247 (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)San Jose Clash v D.C. United (April 1996)Inaugural Major League Soccer match – Seeing as this event is only notable as being the first MLS game, I think the title should reflect that. Per the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the proposed name greatly increases the recognisability by describing what the article is really about. The proposal is also more natural due to how it can be used in prose and it also eliminates the disambiguation. There may be a slightly different version of the proposal that could be better (e.g. "First MLS game", etc). BLAIXX 17:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)LamyatLamyatt – This is the name of the village and now its parish has been renamed to this also. The usual practice anyway is to use the name of the village and include facts about the parish, as opposed to using the name of the parish (if they have variants). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Bird BoxBird Box (novel) – I don’t think that, especially after the release of the film, that this is the primary topic. Surely actual bird boxes are more primary as well. In any case, I think this move is an obvious response to the release of the much better known film. IWI (chat) 15:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Track DownTakedown (2000 film) – This film article was created on August 6, 2006 as Takedown (film). In 2009, following a very brief exchange between two editors ["Article name? (January 2009)"] above, the main title header was moved to Track Down. A substantially longer exchange, between one of those two editors and another editor ["Requested move (December 2009)"] above, was closed by the first editor with the words, "The result of the move request was Do not move" [the now-redlinked redirect Takedown (film) was deleted seven-and-a-half years later]. The article currently has a lengthy hatnote [which would be deleted if the nomination gains support]: "This article is about the 2000 film. For the 1976 film, see Trackdown (film). For the 1979 film, see Take Down (1979 film)", while the film's title on the poster appended to the article as well in references such as IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes or [ The Movie Database], appears as "Takedown". The form Track Down comes from the U.S. DVD release title.     Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 04:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)BirdsallBirdsall (surname) – DAB from the places (of which there are more), they probably have more long-term significance than the surname. A Google search doesn't show any results for the surname or anyone with it. The surname originates from the place in Yorkshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)TziaosChatos – The current name is a relatively obscure rendering of the town's name, based on a mispronunciation, unrecognisable to a modern audience. This is the more common rendering, and this can be seen in Google Books search results. GGT (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Strong Arms of the MaThe Strong Arms of the Ma – ConspiricyStuff points out from two websites that the word 'The' should be included in it's title. I also have the DVD for this season which has the requested title as it is on the booklet. This RM is also to prevent page history split. Iggy (Swan) 00:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)(486958) 2014 MU69Ultima Thule (asteroid) – The powers that be (in this case, the mass media) have spoken through their widespread decision to reference this object in news headlines and article text as "Ultima Thule"; I just finished watching a NOVA special that probably used that name fifty times in an hour. Within the space of a few days, literally millions of sources referring to the object by this name (many solely by this name) have popped up. Notwithstanding the abortive move request initiated and withdrawn in a few days ago, it is highly unlikely that the object will go back to being commonly known by a numerical designation. bd2412 T 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Water wellWell – Water well would appear to serve as the primary meaning of the structure (and possibly a broad concept article) and apart from the adverb and adjective that probably would be difficult to assign an article to (however we do have a DAB at Wellness which may serve that function) this would be most people's understanding of "Well". See discussion at User talk:BD2412#Well. The other types of wells appear to be less common and are known by their full name (eg Oil well). The other uses of "Well" are a few small places and a few "arts" topics that probably wouldn't be expected to be at the base name anyway. Water well shows up first in a WP search from Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)Shattered (song)Shattered (The Rolling Stones song) – There are several songs with the song title of "Shattered". There is another with a Wikipedia article, Shattered (O.A.R. song). Although Rolling Stones song is very well known, it probably not the defining subject for the song title, so it should be disambiguated. One user already moved it to the proposed song title, and another user moved it back, so the move is contested and needs to be discussed. Mburrell (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Discuss)SakastanSakastan (Sasanian Province) – Sakastan was also another name for Sistan, and had existed as a region/province (since its invasion by the Saka in the 2nd-century BC, thus the name Saka(stan)) before the Sasanians, hence I want this moved to avoid confusion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Malformed requests


See also